INSTITUTIONAL TYPES IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

Transcription

1 INSTITUTIONAL TYPES IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA Ian Bunting and Nico Cloete February 2010

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 and above): UP, NWU, UKZN (b) Medium universities (enrolments of ): UFS, Wits, UCT, SU, (c) Small universities (enrolments below ): UL, UWC, UFH, RU (d) Large UoTs (enrolments of and above): TUT (e) Medium UoTs (enrolments of ): CPUT, DUT (f) Small UoTs (enrolments below ): VUT, CUT, MUT (g) Large comprehensives (enrolments of and above): Unisa, UJ (h) Medium comprehensives (enrolments of ): WSU, NMMU (i) Small comprehensives (enrolments below ): 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. 3

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

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 % SET ENROLMENTS % MASTERS AND DOCTORATE ENROLMENTS % ACADEMICS WITH DOCTORATES FTE STUDENT: FTE ACADEMIC RATIO GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND FEES PER FTE STUDENT (R 000) % PRIVATE INCOME 40% and above 30% 39% Below 30% Weighting % and above 5% 9% Below 5% Weighting % and above 20% 34% Below 20% Weighting and below and above Weighting and above Below 40 Weighting % and above 20% 34 Below 20% Weighting

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

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. 10

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 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 A Success rates B Graduation rates C Research output per academic D Doctoral graduates per academic LARGE CONTACT UP 81% 22% TUT 67% 19% NWU 78% 23% UJ 75% 21% UKZN 74% 22% MEDIUM CONTACT CPUT 76% 24% UFS 70% 21% WITS 79% 22% WSU 69% 16% SU 78% 26% NMMU 73% 19% UCT 83% 26% DUT 76% 21% SMALL CONTACT UL 78% 19% VUT 69% 19% UWC 77% 19% Univen 75% 18% CUT 72% 23% UZ 70% 20% UFH 70% 17% MUT 78% 14% RU 86% 29%

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 SUCCESS RATES GRADUATION RATES RESEARCH OUTPUT PER ACADEMIC DOCTORAL GRADUATES PER ACADEMIC 80% and above 75% 79% Below 74% Weighting % and above 18% 21% Below 18% Weighting and above % Below 0.50 Weighting and above Below 0.50 Weighting

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

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. 15

16 Output indicator groupings 17. Group 2 institutions (5): UJ, UKZN, NMMU, UWC, UFS a) AThree 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. 16

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) =

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

20 Graph: 2008 undergraduate qualifiers by grouping undergraduate qualifiers by grouping 80% 70% 60% 73% U/grad dips: 1-year & 2-years U/grad dips: 3-years 3-year u/grad degrees 4-6 year u/grad degrees 50% 40% 30% 20% 23% 41% 30% 40% 17% 34% 24% 17% 37% 21% 15% 10% 10% 10% 9% 20 0% 0% GROUP X GROUP Y GROUP Z UNISA 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 Graph: 2008 postgraduate qualifiers & research publications postgraduate qualifiers & research publications 70% 60% 60% 61% 62% P/grad below masters Masters Doctors 50% Res public units 40% 41% 33% 30% 28% 28% 20% 21% 17% 10% 8% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 11% 0% GROUP X GROUP Y GROUP Z UNISA 21 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 African & Coloured undergraduate qualifiers by groupings 80% 70% 60% 50% 73% U/grad dips: 1-year & 2-years U/grad dips: 3-years 3-year u/grad degrees 4-6 year u/grad degrees 51% 40% 38% 39% 30% 20% 10% 24% 29% 16% 17% 24% 17% 20% 21% 10% 12% 8% 22 0% 0% GROUP X GROUP Y GROUP Z UNISA 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 African & Coloured postgraduate qualifiers by groupings 60% 50% 53% 57% 45% P/grad below masters Masters Doctors 40% 30% 28% 32% 29% 20% 18% 10% 9% 9% 9% 6% 5% 0% GROUP X GROUP Y GROUP Z UNISA 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 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