If you ask ten people across McGill to explain what a “program” is, you’re likely to get ten slightly different answers.
This isn’t about a lack of knowledge or experience, it reflects how information has evolved across the institution over time.
How these differences came about
These variations are the result of decades of organic growth, faculty‑specific structures, system constraints, accreditation requirements, and inherited terminology. Over time, different parts of our institution developed their own language to describe similar academic concepts.
Our content model project is exposing just how far these variations go. Interviews we recently conducted as part of this project revealed dozens of terms used to describe program components alone—61 terms in total—often referring to similar ideas, sometimes to different ones, depending on context. Some of the examples we came across include stream, option, specialization, and track.
Why terminology matters
The risk isn’t just confusion. Terminology directly affects:
- How students compare options.
- How accurately requirements are communicated.
- How content is translated and indexed.
- How reliably information can be reused across systems.
A more practical approach: Separating concepts from labels
Rather than attempting to impose a single approved vocabulary, the project takes a more realistic approach. It aims to separate concepts from labels.
A content model defines what something is, its core meaning and role, independent of how it may be named or marketed in a specific faculty, system, or language. Local terminology still exists, but it becomes attached to a shared underlying vocabulary rather than existing independently.
Language differences are captured, documented, and understood before decisions are made. This allows us to preserve legitimate local variation while still providing clarity at the institutional level. Though we'll still need to determine if all of the labels we use for program components are necessary. I think it's safe to say, 61 variations is probably a little excessive.
A shared foundation beneath the surface
When systems, websites, and search tools can recognize that different labels point to the same underlying concept, they can behave more predictably. Users can move between contexts without having to relearn the language each time. As they arrive on a new site (as our users do as they browse our information), they won't have to ask, "What is a minor called on this website?"
Clear conceptual alignment also reduces risk in high‑stakes areas like admissions requirements, policy summaries, and program pathways, where inconsistent terminology isn’t just confusing, but potentially harmful.
The goal isn’t to make McGill speak with one voice everywhere. It’s to ensure that, underneath that voice, there is a shared structure and shared meaning.
A big thank you to our project participants
We would like to thank everyone who contributed their time and expertise to this project.
To date, we’ve conducted nearly 50 interviews and group discussions with representatives from across McGill. We're aiming to ensure the model reflects a wide range of perspectives and real‑world needs.
Participating departments
- Members of McGill's Student Usability Panel
- Faculty communications teams, including Desautels Faculty of Management, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Faculty of Dental Medicine and Oral Health Sciences, Faculty of Education, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Law, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, School of Continuing Studies, Schulich School of Music
- Admissions and Enrolment
- Student Life and Learning
- Teaching and Academic Planning
- Research and Innovation
- Human Resources
- Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
- Indigenous Initiatives
- IT Services
- Communications and Institutional Relations
- University Advancement
- Financial Services
