Maclean’s 2027 university rankings were released on Oct. 13, and MacEwan University appeared at the bottom of the mid-sized university category — schools with 10,000 to 30,000 students — despite the university choosing not to participate in the ranking.
MacEwan’s performance in the rankings prompted a statement from MacEwan president and vice-chancellor Dr. Annette Trimbee, who expressed her concerns about Maclean’s assessment method.
In a statement to the Griff, the university said that it did not agree to participate in Maclean’s ranking when the magazine reached out in June. In September, Maclean’s notified the university that it would be included in the rankings anyway.
Maclean’s releases its methodology every year, providing a complete breakdown of how each assessment category contributes to universities’ overall scores. Schools are ranked across four broad categories: student experience and success, worth 28 per cent of the overall score; faculty quality, worth 25 per cent; student resources and support, worth 32 per cent; and reputation, worth 15 per cent. Within these four categories are 15 performance indicators.
The data used to assess institutions were primarily sourced from Statistics Canada from the most recently available year. Although their methodology is pragmatic, it gives slightly dated results. Old numbers played a role in how MacEwan ended up at the bottom of the rankings.
Here’s how MacEwan really scored across the 15 given performance indicators.
Student experience and success (28 per cent of overall score)
“Success of students at winning national academic awards:” 8 per cent of overall score
MacEwan’s score: 0 per 1000 students, tied for 18th place among 19 mid-sized universities
This category assesses national “prestigious” awards won by students over the previous five years, using the 2021–2025 period. Maclean’s says it accounts for the Rhodes Scholarships, Fulbrights, and scholarships from professional associations, as well as the three federal granting agencies: the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).
In a message to the Griff, Maclean’s explained that it reached out to previously unranked universities to give them the opportunity to submit any eligible awards the institution had won within the given time frame. Schools that did not submit any awards were analyzed only for 2025, and that number was carried over for the entire time range.
MacEwan denied participation in the rankings and did not submit any awards. Because of that,Maclean’s determined that the university did not win any awards in 2025, and gave MacEwan a zero.
Ultimately, that does not mean MacEwan did not win any awards. For example, MacEwan has won awards from NSERC. Between 2021 and 2025, MacEwan students appear to have been awarded in the University Undergraduate Student Research Awards 29 times, though whether this particular award falls under the “academic” category is unclear.
“Number of students who remain enrolled at the institution for their second year of study:” 5 per cent
MacEwan’s score: 80.4 per cent, 16th place
This metric was from the student cohort that entered university in the 2022–2023 academic year. MacEwan’s score put us in 16th place, with an 11.2 per cent difference from the University of Guelph, which has the highest score in the mid-sized university bracket.
MacEwan is ultimately an undergraduate school, and the reality is that there will always be other schools that are a better fit for students interested in pursuing further education beyond their undergraduate degree. Trimbee notes this in her statement, citing that six of the universities in our bracket have medical schools and seven have law degrees.
“Percentage of students who graduate within six years:” 5 per cent
MacEwan’s score: 43.6 per cent, 18th place
The most recent available data for this metric is from the student cohort that entered university in the 2017–2018 academic year, meaning this cohort’s graduation limit for the Maclean’s ranking was the 2023-2024 academic year.
MacEwan, as a relatively new university, has been evolving quite a bit over the last ten years. Naturally, the university today is not the same as it was for the students in the 2017–2018 cohort.
For example, Maclean’s cites the bachelor of design and bachelor of public safety and justice programs as two of MacEwan’s “standout programs,” yet the student cohort analyzed wouldn’t have had the opportunity to pursue either degree, as they were not yet available in the 2017-2018 academic year.
“Number of full-time equivalent students per full-time faculty member:” 10 per cent
MacEwan’s score: 26.9, 11th place
This score is based on student enrolment numbers from 2023–2024, and MacEwan’s student population has grown significantly since then.
MacEwan expressed discontent for this metric, with Trimbee saying, “while expanding faculty headcount remains a priority as our student body grows, its focus is slightly different from our commitment to the small class sizes that Maclean’s cites but does not weigh.”
In MacEwan’s later statement to the Griff, the university further explained its focus on faculty.
“Universities with large graduate and research programs often have more faculty supporting research activities, which can improve that ratio without necessarily resulting in smaller undergraduate classes,” the university stated.
Faculty quality (25 per cent)
“Number of faculty who have won major awards over the past five years:” 8 per cent
MacEwan’s score: 0, tied for 17th place
In a similar vein to MacEwan’s score in academic student awards, the university did not respond to Maclean’s request for awards to be submitted from 2021–2025. MacEwan did not win any awards in 2025, and Maclean’s carried this number over the entire time frame, hence a score of 0.
Maclean’s cites “Killam, Molson and Stacie prizes, the Royal Society of Canada awards, the 3M Teaching Fellowships, and more than 30 other award programs” as eligible awards for this category.
Though not in the past five years, in 2020, Dr. Diane Symbaluk won the 3M Teaching Fellowship.
Social sciences and humanities grants: 6 per cent
MacEwan’s score: $2,883 average award, 7.69 average number of grants per 100 faculty members, 18th place
Data for grants were received directly from the associated federal granting agencies for the 2025–2026 fiscal year. Social sciences and humanities grants are gathered from SSHRC. While MacEwan receives significant grant funding for an undergraduate institution, the inherent barriers posed by its size and scope hold the university back.
“As an undergraduate university without master’s and doctoral programs, MacEwan also competes for a smaller portion of Tri-Agency funding,” said MacEwan. “Funding is an important measure, but it is only one indicator of research impact. MacEwan’s focus is on research that contributes to student learning and benefits the community.”
Medical-science grants: 6 per cent
MacEwan’s score: $3,822 average award, 13.64 average number of grants per 100 faculty members, 19th place
Medical science grants are funded by NSERC and CIHR.
In her statement, Trimbee mentions that part of her concern with the “faulty” rankings was that other institutions within MacEwan’s bracket have medical schools. This would ultimately increase the number of grants they receive, in turn contributing to MacEwan’s placement alongside the smaller portion of grants the university competes for.
Volume of research output per faculty member: 2.5 per cent
MacEwan’s score: 0.77 per faculty member, 19th place
Maclean’s does not specify what one “unit” of research output would consist of, but the magazine counts it fractionally and adjusts it to a per-faculty-member figure. So, as a fictional example, if one research paper was considered one unit of research output, the volume calculated in MacEwan’s score would be 0.77 research papers per faculty member.
This data was obtained from “Higher Education Strategy Associates using the OpenAlex database for the 2020–2023 publication window.”
“Proportion of the institution’s output that ranks among the 10 per cent most-cited publications of the same work type in the same field and the same year:” 2.5 per cent
MacEwan’s score: 9.1 per cent, 14th place
This category is labelled by Maclean’s as “research impact” and aims to measure the proportion of research from an institution that is cited in the 10 per cent most-cited publications.
This data is collected in the same way as the volume of research output, and the two statistics go hand-in-hand for a combined total of five per cent of the total score for an institution.
Four of the five performance indicators for the faculty quality category are based on the adequacy of research within an institution, rather than on teaching itself. The fifth being the faculty awards outcome, while focused on teaching, did not appropriately reflect MacEwan’s faculty due to the communication barriers with Maclean’s.
As an undergraduate school, MacEwan’s research statistics are limited by natural barriers, which have ultimately contributed 25 per cent to the low ranking that MacEwan received overall.
In 2023, MacEwan released a Tactical Plan for Scholarship at MacEwan, which outlined three overarching goals to promote early-career research opportunities and expand scholarship opportunities. Currently, the university is in the “reinforcing research supports” phase of its implementation plan, which could influence how MacEwan’s research compares to other schools in the future.
Student resources and support: 32 per cent
“Amount of money in the general operating budget per full-time-equivalent student:” 5 per cent
MacEwan’s score: $16,063, 8th place
In this category, students are weighted based on their degree and program of study. At an undergraduate school, the highest-weighted student would be at the bachelor’s level, with diploma programs weighted differently. In this regard, MacEwan is being given the advantage of its operating budget extending further than it would if more expensive graduate programs were available.
As more recent student numbers are not included in these rankings, this number may not be up to date, given MacEwan’s increasing student population.
“Percentage of a university’s operating budget allocated to library services:” 5 per cent
MacEwan’s score: 3.9 per cent, tied for 5th place
Tied for 5th with Carleton University, this category is the highest placement MacEwan has received on any performance indicator.
“Percentage of the library budget spent on acquisitions, including electronic resources:” 4 per cent
MacEwan’s score: 34.8 per cent, 13th place
Though the university ranked highly in the total funds allocated to library services category, MacEwan’s placement for how much of that funding goes towards maintaining an up-to-date collection was much lower.
Trimbee criticized this placement in her statement, saying that Maclean’s methodology measures “expenditures on only a sample of the things through which universities invest in their libraries.”
“Percentage of the budget spent on student services:” 9 per cent
MacEwan’s score: 9 per cent, 7th place
In this category, MacEwan trailed the first-place institution, Mount Royal University, by 2.1 per cent.
Worth noting is that MacEwan’s budget for student services is separate from SAMU, which provides additional student support as a separate organization. This means that while nine per cent of MacEwan’s budget is allocated to student services, students are receiving additional support from other on-campus sources, and this number is not exhaustive of the student experience on campus — though that could be said for other universities with student association services as well.
“Percentage of a university’s total operating expenditures that are devoted to funding scholarships and bursaries:” 9 per cent
MacEwan’s score: 4.4 per cent, 17th place
This figure is the amount of money the university is spending on scholarships, not how much money the university’s students are receiving.
Despite the visibly lower percentage of funding allocated to scholarships and bursaries, MacEwan excelled in funding for student resources and support, which is ultimately the category that most directly reflects student life on campus. MacEwan had an average placement of 10th in this category, its highest of the four outlined in Maclean’s methodology.
Reputation: 15 per cent
MacEwan’s score: 46th place out of 56 universities
Maclean’s, in partnership with The Angus Reid Institute, a public opinion research foundation, surveyed university faculty, senior administrators, and employers across the country to assess the national reputation of Canadian institutions.
The specifics of this survey are not provided, but an institution’s general reputation can be assumed to align with its popularity. Compared with many of the universities in the ranking, MacEwan is relatively small and new. This could affect how the school performed in the survey, though specific metrics are unclear.
The verdict
Maclean’s analysis of MacEwan was thorough, and although the university placed last among mid-sized universities, many of the numbers do not directly reflect the student life experience at MacEwan.
The university struggled in the research-related measurements, with an average placement of 17.4 out of 19. As MacEwan stated, the university competes for a smaller share of grant funding from federal agencies, which puts the university at a disadvantage in these categories.
MacEwan excelled in areas that directly affect students’ day-to-day affairs, such as student services, library services, and operating budget ratios. While the university’s graduation and retention rates appear low, MacEwan is a young university, and its available programs and resources are evolving. The inevitably dated data used to assess the university in these categories also play a role in how accurately it’s being represented.
Had MacEwan submitted their awards to Maclean’s when the magazine reached out, MacEwan likely would have an improved score in its student and faculty award categories, which account for 16 per cent of an institution’s overall ranking. However, MacEwan declined to participate, resulting in a flawed reflection of the university’s awards when it was included in the rankings.
Trimbee’s concerns are legitimate. Many areas were not exhaustive in their measurements, and MacEwan is one of the few exclusively undergraduate schools in the country. Nonetheless, the university performed well for a young, evolving institution that lost points in its awards due to communication issues and does not offer the same medical programs as many in its bracket.
MacEwan argues that for a more accurate analysis of an undergraduate school, the university should be compared to universities with “similar mandates,” and notes that greater emphasis should be placed on teaching quality, student progress, and community impact, among other outcomes.
