INSTITUTIONAL TYPES IN HIGHER
EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
Ian Bunting and Nico Cloete
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
2SECTION 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.
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.
4TABLE 1: Input indicators
5
AVERAGES FOR 2006–2008 2008 INCOME
A 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%
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 ANDDOCTORATE 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
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 76 universities 9 universities 7 universities
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. 89
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
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.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.
11TABLE 3: Output indicators
AVERAGES FOR 2006–2008 A
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
TABLE 4: Output indicator weightings
1314.
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 RATES22% 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
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
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
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
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
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
Combined input and output indicators
(continued) 1920.
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.
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
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
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
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