• No results found

INSTITUTIONAL TYPES IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "INSTITUTIONAL TYPES IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA"

Copied!
24
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

INSTITUTIONAL TYPES IN HIGHER 

EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

Ian Bunting and Nico Cloete

(2)

SECTION A: Introduction

1. SA higher education policy framework has three 

institutional types:

(a) Universities: offer basic formative degrees such as BA & BSc, and professional  undergraduate degrees such as BSc Eng and MBChB.; at postgraduate level offer  honours degrees, and range of masters and doctoral degrees. (b) Universities of technology: offer mainly vocational or career‐focused  undergraduate diplomas, and BTech which serves as a capping qualification for  diploma graduates. Offers limited number of masters and doctoral programmes. (c) Comprehensive universities: offer programmes typical of university as well as  programmes typical of university of technology.

2. SA has in 2010:

11 universities, 6 universities of technology, 6 comprehensive universities

2

(3)

SECTION A: Introduction

3. If size of head count enrolment in 2008 is used as 

further indicator of type, the SA system breaks down 

into these subgroups:

(a) Large universities (enrolments of 30 000 and above): UP, NWU, UKZN (b) Medium universities (enrolments of 20 000–29 999): UFS, Wits, UCT, SU,  (c) Small universities (enrolments below 20 000): UL, UWC, UFH, RU (d) Large UoTs (enrolments of 30 000 and above): TUT

(e) Medium UoTs (enrolments of 20 000–29 999): CPUT, DUT (f) Small UoTs (enrolments below 20 000): VUT, CUT, MUT (g) Large comprehensives (enrolments of 30 000 and above): Unisa, UJ (h) Medium comprehensives (enrolments of 20 000–29 999): WSU, NMMU (i) Small comprehensives (enrolments below 20 000): Univen, UZ  3 Subgroups (a)–(f) above can clearly not be taken to be institutional types for the purposes of policy analyses.  Different method should be used for determining institutional types within SA higher education.

(4)

SECTION B: Types and institutional indicators

5. Proposal is that descriptive and performance 

indicators be used to determine institutional types 

in SA’s HE system. (See Table 1) 

6. Points to note about the input indicators in Table 1:

(a) Columns B and C are reflections both of student choice and of  

programme and qualification mixes (PQMs) within which universities 

are permitted to operate.

(b) Column D reflects the capacity of academic staff to conduct and 

supervise research.

(c) Columns E and F are indicators of resources available to universities.

(d) Column G reflects the external reputation of a university, of its ability 

to deliver research contracts and of its financial well‐being.

4

(5)

TABLE 1: Input indicators

5

AVERAGES FOR 2006–2008 2008 INCOME

2008 heads  (thousands) B % SET majors % masters and C doctors students in head count   D % academic staff with  doctorates E FTE students: academic staff F Subsidy and fees per FTE student (R’000)   Private as % of G total income LARGE CONTACT UP 53 37% 15% 40% 17 56 37% TUT 52 34% 3% 10% 31 37 17% NWU 47 21% 9% 42% 29 34 36% UJ 44 30% 5% 21% 17 42 24% UKZN 37 31% 13% 33% 19 56 37% MEDIUM CONTACT CPUT 29 48% 2% 10% 29 41 19% UFS 26 28% 13% 49% 17 47 31% WITS 26 49% 22% 41% 13 75 54% WSU 25 27% 1% 6% 29 22 5% SU 24 39% 22% 47% 13 67 48% NMMU 23 29% 7% 31% 27 61 30% UCT 22 41% 19% 43% 12 88 40% DUT 22 49% 1% 5% 29 42 14% SMALL CONTACT UL 17 44% 12% 15% 14 55 22% VUT 17 41% 1% 5% 32 33 13% UWC 15 29% 11% 41% 19 54 33% Univen 11 26% 4% 33% 30 70 16% CUT 11 43% 3% 18% 29 44 12% UZ 10 26% 5% 35% 35 33 39% UFH 9 16% 5% 14% 21 44 35% MUT 9 57% 0% 4% 46 37 4% RU 6 22% 13% 48% 18 80 30%

(6)

Input indicator weightings

7. The indicators in columns B to G of Table 1 can be 

given weightings, in order to begin to sort the 22 

contact universities into distinct groupings. 

% SET ENROLMENTS 40% and above 30%‐39%  Below 30% Weighting 3 2 1 % MASTERS AND 

DOCTORATE ENROLMENTS 10% and above 5% ‐ 9% Below 5%

Weighting 3 2 1

% ACADEMICS WITH 

DOCTORATES 35% and above 20% ‐ 34% Below 20%

Weighting 3 2 1

FTE STUDENT: FTE 

ACADEMIC RATIO 20 and below 21 ‐ 29 30 and above

Weighting 3 2 1 GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND  FEES PER FTE STUDENT  (R’000) 60 and above 40 ‐ 50  Below 40 Weighting 3 2 1 % PRIVATE INCOME 35% and above 20% ‐ 34 Below 20% Weighting 3 2 1

Table 2

(7)

8. Weightings applied to the input Indicators in Table 1, the following 3 clusters of universities  appear: 7

5

18 18 17 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 8 7 7

6 universities 9 universities 7 universities

(8)

Input indicator groupings

9. Group 1 institutions (6): Wits, UCT, SU, UP, UKZN, RU

a) All 6 are, in terms of the types in paragraph 1, universities:  2 large, 3 medium and 1  small. b) Their average input indicator score (where maximum is 3)  = 2.75 c) Their approved programme mix allows them to enrol students with heavy subsidy  weightings. Because they enrol large‐proportions of fee‐paying students, subsidy  funds + fees available per FTE student are high, and FTE student to FTE academic staff  ratios are low. d) Are able to deliver good teaching/learning services, so reputations are good and  attractive to quality students. e) Master and doctors proportions are above averages for HE system, and reflect high  levels of research activity. This, plus teaching/learning reputation,  results in  institutions in this group being able to attract substantial % of private income. 8

(9)

9

Input indicator groupings

10.  Group 2 institutions (7): 

CPUT, DUT, Univen, CUT, MUT, TUT, WSU

(a) Group consists of : 4 universities of technology (UoT), 3 comprehensive universities.  By size, the composition is :  1 large, 3 medium, 3 small. (b) Average input indicator score (where maximum is 3)  =  1.70 (c) Approved programme mix limits qualifications and fields in which they operate. Have  large % of 3‐year undergraduate degree and  undergraduate diplomas students.  Proportions of postgraduate students are low. High % of students need financial aid.  Consequence is that subsidy funds + fees available per FTE student are low compared  to input group 1, and FTE student to FTE academic staff ratios are high. (d) Institutions are not able to attract levels of private funding comparable to group 1.

(10)

10

Input indicator groupings

11.  Group 3 institutions (9): 

UFS, UWC, UJ, UL, VUT, NWU, NMMU, UZ, UFH

(a) Group consists of:  5 universities, 3 comprehensives and 1 UoT.  By size, the composition is:  2 large, 2 medium, 5 small. (b) Average input indicator score (where maximum is 3)  =  2.1 (c) In terms of approved qualification mix, this is a heterogeneous group, that falls in  between input groups 1 and 3. 

(11)

Output indicators

12.  A  set of performance‐based indicators can also be 

used to divide institutions into specific groupings.  

These indicators are set out in Table 3.

13.  Points to note about the output indicators in Table 3:

(a) Column A contains gives the average success rate for all courses in 

a university. 

(b) Column B is  the standard graduate/head count ratio, with 1‐year and 

2‐year undergraduate diplomas being excluded.

(c) Column C is the standard ratio of weighted research outputs per 

permanent academic (doctoral graduates = 3, research masters = 1, 

research publications = 1).

(d) Column D  includes only doctoral graduates, as  a reflection of  need 

for universities to produce new academics and new researchers. 

11

(12)

TABLE 3: Output indicators

AVERAGES FOR 2006–2008

Success rates Graduation ratesB Research output C per academic D Doctoral graduates  per academic LARGE CONTACT UP 81% 22% 1.37 0.10 TUT 67% 19% 0.27 0.02 NWU 78% 23% 1.12 0.12 UJ 75% 21% 0.95 0.08 UKZN 74% 22% 1.04 0.08 MEDIUM CONTACT CPUT 76% 24% 0.17 0.01 UFS 70% 21% 0.95 0.09 WITS 79% 22% 1.13 0.11 WSU 69% 16% 0.07 0.00 SU 78% 26% 2.14 0.15 NMMU 73% 19% 0.96 0.07 UCT 83% 26% 1.77 0.16 DUT 76% 21% 0.21 0.01 SMALL CONTACT UL 78% 19% 0.37 0.01 VUT 69% 19% 0.11 0.00 UWC 77% 19% 0.82 0.07 Univen 75% 18% 0.23 0.01 CUT 72% 23% 0.87 0.03 UZ 70% 20% 0.75 0.09 UFH 70% 17% 0.44 0.03 MUT 78% 14% 0.04 0.00 RU 86% 29% 1.48 0.13

(13)

TABLE 4: Output indicator weightings

13

14. 

The indicators in Table 3 can be given weightings,

in order perform a further sort on the 22 contact 

universities. 

SUCCESS RATES 80% and above 75% ‐ 79%  Below 74% Weighting 3 2 1 GRADUATION RATES

22% and above 18% ‐ 21% Below 18%

Weighting 3 2 1

RESEARCH OUTPUT PER 

ACADEMIC 1.2 and above 0.50 ‐ 1.19% Below 0.50

Weighting 3 2 1

DOCTORAL GRADUATES 

PER ACADEMIC 0.10 and above 0.05 ‐ 0.09 Below 0.50

Weighting 3 2 1

(14)

Output indicator groupings

14 14

6 universities 5 universities 11 universities

15. Graph B: Institutional groupings based on output indicators

12 12 12 11 10 10 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4

(15)

15

Output indicator groupings

16.  Group 1 institutions (6): 

UP, UCT, RU, SA, NWU, Wits

(a)

Average output indicator score  for group 1 (maximum  3) = 2.83

(b)

NWU moved from input group 2 to output group 1, and UKZN 

moved from input group 1 to output group 2.

(16)

16

Output indicator groupings

17.  Group 2 institutions (5): 

UJ, UKZN, NMMU, UWC, UFS

a)

A Three are universities and 2 comprehensives. 

b)

Average output indicator score  for group 2 (maximum  3) = 2.0

c)

Four institutions moved from input group 2 to output group 3: 

UZ, UL, Univen, UFH. 

(17)

17

Output indicator groupings

18.  Group 3 institutions (11): 

DUT, UZ, UL, CPUT, CUT,  Univen, MUT, TUT, VUT, 

UFH, WSU

(a)

Group consists of 6 universities of technology, 3 comprehensives 

and 2 universities.

(b)

No institutions in input group 3 moved to output group 2.

(c)

Average output indicator score for group (maximum 3) = 1.27

(18)

6 universities 6 universities 10 universities

19. Graph C: Institutional Groupings based on combined input & output indicators

30 28 28 28 26 23 22 21 21 21 19 19 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 12 11 11

(19)

Combined input and output indicators 

(continued) 19

20. 

Combined input + output group X consists of  6 universities:  

UCT, UP, Wits, SU, RU, UKZN.  

Average combined indicator score for group X (maximum 3) = 2.72

21

.

Combined input + output group Y consists of  4 universities & 

2 comprehensives:  NWU, UWC, UJ, UFS, NMMU, UL.  

Average combined indicator score for group X (maximum 3) = 2.05

22.

Combined input + output group Z consists of  1 university, 3 

comprehensives, 6 UoT: UFH, Univen, UZ, WSU, CPUT, DUT, CUT, 

MUT, TUT, VUT.  

Average combined indicator score for group X (maximum 3) = 1.46

Graphs which follow demonstrate functions of the three combined 

groupings in terms of graduate and research outputs for 2008.

(20)

Graph: 2008 undergraduate qualifiers by grouping

20

Group X: UCT, UP, WITS, SU, RU,

UKZN

Group Y: NWU, UWC, UJ, UFS, NMMU, UL,

Group Z: UZ, CPUT, Univen, DUT, CUT, UFH, MUT, TUT, VUT

WSU

23. 2008 undergraduate qualifiers by grouping

23% 40% 17% 21% 0% 17% 73% 10% 41% 34% 10% 15% 30% 24% 37% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

GROUP X GROUP Y GROUP Z UNISA

U/grad dips: 1-year & 2-years U/grad dips: 3-years

3-year u/grad degrees 4-6 year u/grad degrees

(21)

21

Graph: 2008 postgraduate qualifiers & research publications

Group X: UCT, UP, WITS, SU, RU,

UKZN

Group Y: NWU, UWC, UJ, UFS, NMMU, UL

Group Z: UZ, CPUT, Univen, DUT, CUT, UFH, MUT, TUT, VUT,

WSU

24. 2008 postgraduate qualifiers & research publications

41% 33% 8% 17% 60% 28% 6% 6% 61% 28% 5% 6% 62% 21% 6% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

GROUP X GROUP Y GROUP Z UNISA

P/grad below masters Masters

Doctors

(22)

22

Group X: UCT, UP, WITS, SU, RU,

UKZN

Group Y: NWU, UWC, UJ, UFS, NMMU, UL

Group Z: UZ, CPUT, Univen, DUT, CUT, UFH, MUT, TUT, VUT,

WSU

25. 2008 African & Coloured undergraduate qualifiers by groupings

24% 38% 17% 21% 0% 17% 73% 10% 29% 39% 20% 12% 16% 24% 51% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

GROUP X GROUP Y GROUP Z UNISA

U/grad dips: 1-year & 2-years U/grad dips: 3-years

3-year u/grad degrees 4-6 year u/grad degrees

(23)

Group X: UCT, UP, WITS, SU, RU,

UKZN

Group Y: NWU, UWC, UJ, UFS, NMMU, UL

Group Z: UZ, CPUT, Univen, DUT, CUT, UFH, MUT, TUT, VUT,

WSU

26. 2008 African & Coloured postgraduate qualifiers by groupings

18% 28% 45% 9% 53% 32% 9% 6% 57% 29% 9% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

GROUP X GROUP Y GROUP Z UNISA

P/grad below masters Masters

(24)

SECTION C: Summing up

1.

Main aim of presentation was to explore question of whether available data 

on indicators can be used to identify distinct institutional types in the HE 

system in SA. Argument has been that contact institutions fall into three 

types, determined by policy‐driven decisions on programme mixes and 

government funding, as well as by  institutional performance in 

teaching/learning and research, and by the reputation developed by the 

institution.

2.

The bases of the three types identified are the quantitative indicators 

selected, and the weightings assigned to each indicator. A question which 

must arise is whether the use of  only quantitative indicators is acceptable, 

and if so, whether the division of the each indicator score into one of three 

weighting categories is acceptable.

3.

A final major issue is this:  can institutional types derived in this way be used 

to establish a formal differentiated system in SA?

24

References

Related documents

The Pennsylvania eHealth Partnership Authority (Authority) 2014–2017 Strategic and Operational Plan for Electronic Health Information Exchange is the culmination of a

Furthermore, as for the right episodes of corruption, the difference in how the daily number of articles varies between the two newspapers as the elections approach is positive

A recently proposed metaheuristic algorithm that has achieved successful results in various problem domains called Cuckoo Search is used to perform the simulation-based

Erin Boh, who chairs the department of dermatology at Tulane University School of Medicine, specializes in treating complicated, chronic diseases like severe psoriasis and

reactors are examples of a process configuration that result in good ethanol yields and productivities when immobilized cells are used. This study examines the co-culture of

(B) Demographics and tumor statistical analysis in 16-week-old double-mutant and control mice shows significantly higher tumor density for Apc Min/+ NHERF1 −/− mice in the

This negative mean radial vorticity flux feature is, in part, a consequence of the boundary-layer spin-up mechanism discussed above and is seen as a localized positive tangential

the software process and influences product quality.  Metrics are necessary to provide measurements of such qualities.  Metrics can also be used to gauge the size and complexity