1 / 24

INSTITUTIONAL TYPES IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

INSTITUTIONAL TYPES IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA. Ian Bunting and Nico Cloete. February 2010. SECTION A: Introduction. 1. SA higher education policy framework has three institutional types:

lovie
Télécharger la présentation

INSTITUTIONAL TYPES IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INSTITUTIONAL TYPES IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA Ian Bunting and NicoCloete February 2010

  2. SECTION A: Introduction 1. SA higher education policy framework has three institutional types: • 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. • 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. • 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

  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: • Large universities (enrolments of 30 000 and above): UP, NWU, UKZN • Medium universities (enrolments of 20 000–29 999): UFS, Wits, UCT, SU, • Small universities (enrolments below 20 000): UL, UWC, UFH, RU • Large UoTs (enrolments of 30 000 and above): TUT • Medium UoTs (enrolments of 20 000–29 999): CPUT, DUT • Small UoTs (enrolments below 20 000): VUT, CUT, MUT • Large comprehensives (enrolments of 30 000 and above): Unisa, UJ • Medium comprehensives (enrolments of 20 000–29 999): WSU, NMMU • Small comprehensives (enrolments below 20 000): Univen, UZ 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: • Columns B and C are reflections both of student choice and of programme and qualification mixes (PQMs) within which universities are permitted to operate. • Column D reflects the capacity of academic staff to conduct and supervise research. • Columns E and F are indicators of resources available to universities. • Column G reflects the external reputation of a university, of its ability to deliver research contracts and of its financial well-being.

  5. TABLE 1: Input indicators

  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. • Table 2

  7. 8. Graph A: Institutional groupings based on input indicators 8. Weightings applied to the input Indicators in Table 1, the following 3 clusters of universities appear: 5 7 universities 9 universities 6 universities

  8. Input indicator groupings • Group 1 institutions (6): Wits, UCT, SU, UP, UKZN, RU • All 6 are, in terms of the types in paragraph 1, universities: 2 large, 3 medium and 1 small. • Their average input indicator score (where maximum is 3) = 2.75 • 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. • Are able to deliver good teaching/learning services, so reputations are good and attractive to quality students. • 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.

  9. Input indicator groupings 10. Group 2 institutions (7): CPUT, DUT, Univen, CUT, MUT, TUT, WSU • Group consists of : 4 universities of technology (UoT), 3 comprehensive universities. By size, the composition is : 1 large, 3 medium, 3 small. • Average input indicator score (where maximum is 3) = 1.70 • 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. • 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 • Group consists of: 5 universities, 3 comprehensives and 1 UoT. By size, the composition is: 2 large, 2 medium, 5 small. • Average input indicator score (where maximum is 3) = 2.1 • 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: • Column A contains gives the average success rate for all courses in a university. • Column B is the standard graduate/head count ratio, with 1-year and 2-year undergraduate diplomas being excluded. • Column C is the standard ratio of weighted research outputs per permanent academic (doctoral graduates = 3, research masters = 1, research publications = 1). • Column D includes only doctoral graduates, as a reflection of need for universities to produce new academics and new researchers.

  12. TABLE 3: Output indicators

  13. TABLE 4: Output indicator weightings • 14. The indicators in Table 3 can be given weightings, in order perform a further sort on the 22 contact universities. • Table 4

  14. 15. Graph B: Institutional groupings based on output indicators Output indicator groupings 14 6 universities 5 universities 11 universities

  15. Output indicator groupings 16. Group 1 institutions (6): UP, UCT, RU, SA, NWU, Wits • Average output indicator score for group 1 (maximum 3) = 2.83 • 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 Three are universities and 2 comprehensives. • Average output indicator score for group 2 (maximum 3) = 2.0 • 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 • Group consists of 6 universities of technology, 3 comprehensives and 2 universities. • No institutions in input group 3 moved to output group 2. • Average output indicator score for group (maximum 3) = 1.27

  18. 19. Graph C: Institutional Groupings based on combined input & output indicators 10 universities 6 universities 6 universities

  19. Combined input and output indicators (continued) 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. 23. 2008 undergraduate qualifiers by grouping Graph: 2008 undergraduate qualifiers by grouping 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

  21. 24. 2008 postgraduate qualifiers & research publications 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

  22. 25. 2008 African & Coloured undergraduate qualifiers by groupings 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. 26. 2008 African & Coloured postgraduate qualifiers by groupings 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. SECTION C: Summing up • 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. • 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. • A final major issue is this: can institutional types derived in this way be used to establish a formal differentiated system in SA?

More Related