ACCESS, SUCCESS AND FIELDS OF STUDY

The previous section analysed the performance of the higher education sector in terms of enrolment and graduations for the 16 year period under review. The DoE (2001) advanced the arguments of the White Paper 1997 in relation to the needs of the economy and the graduates required. To this end, it was proposed that for the SA economy to be competitive, enrolment in the Social Sciences and Humanities had to be reduced. This required careful steering of the system towards Science, Engineering and Technology.

The DoE (2001) presents an indicative target for shifting enrolment figures from dominance in the Humanities to an increased figure in SET. In 2001, the ratio stood at 49:26:25 for: the Humanities; Business and Engineering; and SET (DoE, 2001:30). The plan indicates that this should shift over the next five to ten years (starting in 2001) to 40:30:30 percent respectively. There has been critical consensus that the achievement of SET targets would continue to be compromised by the weaknesses of the school system to produce sufficient numbers for absorption into the higher education system (CHE, 2004b; Fisher & Scott, 2011). By 2010, the proportion of students enrolled in SET had reached 28 percent. It was argued that this shift will be achieved by improvements to funding for SET programmes and the introduction of Programme Qualification Mixes as a steering tool for institutions to seek approval from the Department of Education for programmes to be funded (DoE, 2005). Figure 5.14 signals that despite many incentives being put in place, the country has still not achieved the desired target. The average annual growth between 1994 and 2010 for SET graduates was 4,65 percent.

Figure 5.14 depicts enrolment in the broad categories of Humanities, Education, SET and Business and Management. The near doubling of enrolment in Science from 1994 to 2010 is significant, given the discussion on the number of potential applicants from the pool from the school sector. Detailed discussion on the potential danger of the reduction of academically qualified entrants from the school sector has been undertaken in Chapter 4.

0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 250 000 300 000 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 En ro lm en t n u m b er s

Growth in enrolments by major field of study for the period 1994 to 2010

Education Business/management Science, engineering, technology Other Humanities

FIGURE 5.14: ENROLMENT BY FIELD OF STUDY, 1994–2010

Table 5.5 compares average annual increases in the fields in five year blocks. The growth in Education could be attributed to the increase in state bursary schemes for teachers, though the shortage of teachers is specifically in the fields of Science and Mathematics, as well as at the Foundation Phase. The growth in SET slows down for the period 2006 to 2010 implying that the target set by the DoE (2001) could be problematic to achieve. It must be noted that the drive to improve enrolment in Education and SET is further stressed in the government’s Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) targets for the Ministry for Higher Education and Training and for the Department of Science and Technology (DST). The emphasis on these specific areas since 2009 has forced universities to commit specifically in these areas in terms of enrolment targets and graduate output (DHET, 2012).

TABLE 5.5: AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE PER FIELD OF STUDY

Field of Study Average Annual Increase: 1994–1999 Average Annual Increase: 2000–2005 Average Annual Increase: 2006–2010 SET 4,7% 5,6% 3,1% Business/Management 7,6% 9,1% 4,3% Education 1,7% 8,1% 8,0% Other Humanities -0,8% 2,1% 0,5%

Source: DHET, HEMIS, 2012.

Figure 5.15 breaks down undergraduate graduates in the three broad fields. Thus, despite the growth in enrolment for SET, the graduate output is stagnant. If the benchmark is set for 30 percent of total undergraduate output to be in SET, then further interventions at the institutional level will be required to improve graduate output. The 28 percent in SET has remained constant in the last five year period and will require a concerted drive in improvement of teaching and learning at institutions.

FIGURE 5.15: UNDERGRADUATE GRADUATES BY FIELD OF STUDY

Source: DHET, HEMIS, 2012.

Figure 5.16 demonstrates that there has been a growth in the number of SET graduates; but, in keeping with Figure 5.15, the number of graduates has increased, although there is no growth in terms of percentage of total graduates. According to the SA Development Indicators Report (The Presidency, 2011:51), issues of throughput and insufficient supply of Science and Maths candidates from the school system can be identified as reasons for the slow growth in the number of graduates.

FIGURE 5.16: TOTAL ENROLMENT, TOTAL GRADUATES AND SET GRADUATES

5.8.

CONCLUSION

There has been much doom and gloom associated with the performance of the higher education sector. Measurement of equity of access and equality of access has been the subject of many policy documents (DoE, 1997; DoE, 2001, DHET, 2012), as well as for analysts. This chapter has demonstrated that there have been significant gains in terms of widening participation and access to higher education specifically analysed in terms of race, enrolment by field of study, and level of study. The flip side of the coin is measurement of success. The Scott, et al. (2007) study showed that there are variances in performance and completion of studies based on race. The dominant discourse from the 1990s to about 2001 was framed by widening of access and creating opportunities for the marginalised race groups. It was clear that accountability, defined as success in higher education, emerged as a discussion at the instigation of the DoE, as studies indicated that there was a high dropout rate in the first year and that the throughput rate was compromised (Bunting, 1994; Cloete, et al., 2002).

The DHET publishes the Trends in Macro-Indicators in Education Report each year. Whilst it is not a performance report in the strictest sense, it does analyse some equity indicators like inputs (enrolment) and outcomes (graduation rates and success rates). The concluding chapter will suggest frameworks that could be used to evaluate and monitor goals set by a country, recognising the shortcomings of data collection mechanisms to inform evaluation and monitoring.