HE throughput and retention

South Africa’s HE system has not only expanded rapidly in terms of headcount enrolments over the past

two decades, but also in terms of its graduate output (DHET, 2012:38). In fact, the number of graduations in

the system has grown significantly faster than the number of new enrolments since 2000. While first-time

entering undergraduate enrolments at public HEIs increased by an estimated 40.4% between 2000 and 2013,

rising from roughly 112 800 to 158 400, undergraduate graduations nearly doubled from around 68 400 to 128

800 over the same period.12

Despite the substantial growth in graduations, CHE (2013:9) notes that the current level of graduate output

in the HE system is still not sufficient to meet South Africa’s skills demands. One of the quantifiable targets

12

3.2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE OVERVIEW 42

set out in NPC (2011:278) is to increase the number of graduates produced by the HE system to 425 000 by

2030 - more than double the system’s current estimated graduate output. This target is not only premised on

increasing the GER to more than 30% (currently 19.2%), but also on increasing the national graduation rate to

25%, despite the fact that the graduation rate only rose from 15.3% to 18.3% between 2001 and 2013.13

In light of the aforementioned targets, the pervasiveness of low levels of throughput and retention across much

of the HE system is a significant cause for concern. Far too few students ever complete their undergraduate

studies and those who do often take considerably longer than the minimum time required to do so. For

example, in what could be considered to be the first nationally representative HE cohort tracking study to

be conducted in South Africa, Scott et al. (2007:12) estimates that only 38% of the national 2000 first-time entering undergraduate cohort successfully completed their studies within five years, while 45% of the cohort

had already left the system without completing any qualification.

More recent HE cohort tracking and tracer studies in South Africa have tended to confirm the findings of Scott

et al. (2007). The Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) undergraduate curriculum proposal, which is arguably the most widely referenced major study on HE throughput and retention in South Africa, for example reported

that only 35% of the students from the national 2006 first-time entering undergraduate cohort completed

their studies within five years and that 55% were unlikely to ever graduate (CHE, 2013:45).14 CHE (2014a:1) furthermore notes that, on average, only 27% of undergraduate students complete their qualifications within

regulation time. Similarly, the figures presented in Blom (2014:38 - 46) show that, of the learners from the

2008 national matric cohort who entered the HE system as first-time entering undergraduate students in 2009,

only 36.3% completed their studies within four years, while 25.8% dropped out of HE within three years.15

Clearly, a situation where more than half of all students who commence with undergraduate studies never

complete those programmes is untenable. Not only does it undermine the much needed expansion of South

Africa’s scarce skills base, but it is also tremendously costly, both for society and for those students who are

effectively excluded from reaping the benefits of HE success. This is particularly true given that, much like

HE access, the extent of HE throughput and retention in South Africa varies substantially along dimensions

of race and socio-economic status (DHET, 2012:8).

Tracking the national 2006 first-time entering undergraduate cohort, CHE (2013:43) estimates that 44% of

all White students who enrolled in 3- or 4-year undergraduate programmes at contact HEIs completed their

studies in regulation time. By contrast, only 20% of Black students, 24% of Coloured students, and 28% of

Indian students from the cohort are estimated to have done the same. Racial differentials were also evident

in terms of HE attrition.16 Where it was found that 42% of Black and 47% of Coloured students receptively dropped out by the end of regulation time, the estimates for their Indian and White counterparts were 39%

and 33%, respectively.

13

Author’s own estimations using aggregate HEMIS data accessed via HEDA (2015). The graduation rate expresses the number of graduates produced by HEIs as a percentage of the number of headcount enrolments in the system.

14

The throughput and dropout estimates in CHE (2013) exclude students who enrolled in 1- or 2-year certificate or diploma pro-

grammes. According to aggregate HEMIS data accessed via HEDA (2015), students enrolled in such programmes accounted for

roughly 10.3% of the national 2006 first-time entering undergraduate cohort. 15

The attrition and completion rate estimates presented in Blom (2014) are highly misleading and do not appear to be supported by the data in the report. Consequently, the figures reported here are the author’s own calculations based on the raw figures in the report and were estimated using the methodology described in Section 3.3.3 below.

16

The notion of HEattrition in CHE (2013) is never formally defined and it is not immediately clear how the various attrition rates

presented in the study were estimated. However, the termsattrition and dropout appear to be used virtually interchangeably

throughout the study and, as such, one might assume that the CHE (2013)attrition rate is analogous to the HE dropout rates more

3.2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE OVERVIEW 43

While it may have been expected that students from historically disadvantaged backgrounds would take

longer to complete their studies and be more likely to drop out of HE, the racial differentials implied by

CHE (2013:43) and other studies (see Scottet al. (2007)) are alarming. Moreover, these differentials appear to be persistent over the enrolment horizon. Using data on the national 2007 first-time entering undergraduate

cohort, CHE (2014b:62,63,65) shows that even after six years, the completion rate for White students enrolled at contact HEIs is roughly 25% higher and the dropout rate 25% lower than the equivalent metrics for Black

and Coloured students across all 3- and 4-year undergraduate programmes.

South Africa’s low and unequal HE throughput and retention rates are likely to be underpinned by many

of the same factors that explain the low and unequal levels of HE access in the country. In an institutional

case study conducted at the University of the Western Cape (UWC), for example, Breier (2010:57) found that

students were most likely to drop out or stop out of HE because of financial reasons.17 However, most studies have argued that low levels of HE throughput and retention in South Africa are largely the result of a signi-

ficant articulation gap between the secondary schooling system and HE, noting that students are generally

inadequately prepared to cope with the academic demands of HE study.18

The prevalence of supposed under-preparedness among first-time entering HE students is neither a new phe-

nomenon, nor one which is unique to South Africa.19 A large number of studies, dating back as early as 1936, have noted that first-time entering HE students in South Africa are inadequately prepared to deal with the

academic challenges inherent in undergraduate study (Caseet al., 2013:2). However, the extremely low levels of throughput and high levels of dropout, particularly among historically disadvantaged students, suggests

that under-preparedness in South African HE is as acute as ever, if not substantially more so. Moreover, the

persistence and pervasiveness of this phenomenon partly exposes the fact that it remains poorly understood.

From a policy perspective, there is thus clearly a need to better understand how under-preparedness manifests

in the HE system and why the HE outcomes that are observed for different students obtain.