FROM MATRIC INTO AND THROUGH UNIVERSITY University … Matric into and through... ·...

Introduction Bottlenecks Methodology Outcomes Matric performance Institutions Race Quintile Conclusion

FROM MATRIC INTO AND THROUGH UNIVERSITY

University access and success for the 2008 National Matric cohort

Hendrik van Broekhuizen, Servaas van der Berg, and Heleen Hofmeyr

31 October 2017

RESEPResearch on Socio-Economic Policy

From Matric into and through university (31/10/2017) http://resep.sun.ac.za 1 / 25


Project background Research context

Project backgroundProject context and research outputs

I Part of Labour Market Intelligence Project (LMIP)I ’Pathways through education and training and into the workplace’

I Forthcoming LMIP book chapter (est. 2018)I Working papers almost available...:LMIP: http://www.lmip.org.za/lmippublications

I Working papers available:US: http://www.ekon.sun.ac.za/wpapers/IZA: http://ftp.iza.org/dp10358.pdf


http://www.lmip.org.za/lmippublications

http://www.ekon.sun.ac.za/wpapers/

http://ftp.iza.org/dp10358.pdf



ContextWhy?

I Relatively few graduates in SA’s skills-shortage contextI < 9% of youth have tertiary education; only 4% have degrees

I Low university access (GER < 20%) + weak university throughputI Lack of data undermines understanding of these phenomenaI No integration of school and university data⇒ limited understanding

I transition from secondary school into and through universityI how secondary schooling outcomes influence university outcomes.

I But now...




ContextHow?

I Nationally representative, integrated, longitudinal administrative dataset onmatric learners and public university students1

I explicitly links unit-record data on NSC examinations and school characteristics withpublic university enrolments and graduations at the national level

I Makes it possible to “track” learners from matric into and through universityI Allows detailed, nationally representative quantitative analysis of

I transitions from school to university (access)I how matric results, demographics, and school background influence universityoutcomes (correlates)

I how students progress through the public university system (completion & dropout)

1Acknowledgements: DBE and DHET (Kirsten Barth) for the data linking, anonymisation, and provision.From Matric into and through university (31/10/2017) http://resep.sun.ac.za 4 / 25



ContextWhat?

I Use integrated 2008 NSC and 2009 - 2014 HEMIS data toI examine university access, entrance, completion, and exit patternsI over a six year period (2009 - 2014)I for all learners who wrote the 2008 NSC exams



1. Getting to Matric 2. Doing well in Matric 3. Getting to university 4. Doing well at university

Why does SA have so few graduates?4 major bottlenecks on the path to getting a university qualification

100Start

School

WriteMatric

PassMatric

AccessUniversity

CompleteUG qual

CompleteDegree

0 20 40 60 80 100





100

60

StartSchool

WriteMatric

PassMatric

AccessUniversity

CompleteUG qual

CompleteDegree

0 20 40 60 80 100





100

60

37 14 Bachelor passes12 Diploma passes

StartSchool

WriteMatric

PassMatric

AccessUniversity

CompleteUG qual

CompleteDegree

0 20 40 60 80 100





100

60

37

12

14 Bachelor passes12 Diploma passes

8 go immediately4 go later

StartSchool

WriteMatric

PassMatric

AccessUniversity

CompleteUG qual

CompleteDegree

0 20 40 60 80 100





100

60

37

12

6



get some kind of undergraduate university qualification within 6 years after matric

StartSchool

WriteMatric

PassMatric

AccessUniversity

CompleteUG qual

CompleteDegree

0 20 40 60 80 100





100

60

37

12

6

4



get some kind of undergraduate university qualification within 6 years after matric

get a degree within 6 years after matric

StartSchool

WriteMatric

PassMatric

AccessUniversity

CompleteUG qual

CompleteDegree

0 20 40 60 80 100



Measuring university outcomes for the 2008 NSC cohort4 Outcomes metrics: access, completion, dropout, and conversion rates

I t-year access rate =

[(t∑

i=1

FTEN2008+i

)|NSC2008

]/NSC2008

I t-year completion rate =

[(t∑

i=1

FTC2008+i

)|FTEN2009,NSC2008

]/FTEN2009

I t-year dropout rate =

[(t∑

i=1

D2008+i

)|FTEN2009,NSC2008

]/FTEN2009

I t-year conversion rate =

[(t∑

i=1

FTC2008+i

)|NSC2008

]/NSC2008



Summarised outcomes Delayed access (S)low throughput Dropout

University outcomes for the 2008 NSC cohortOne to six year access, completion, dropout, and retention rates for the

1 year(2009)

2 years(2010)

3 years(2011)

4 years(2012)

5 years(2013)

6 years(2014)

Access rate 12.9 16.7 18.2 19.0 19.6 20.0Completion rate 0.2 0.5 15.4 36.9 50.3 58.1Dropout rate 9.2 14.5 19.2 23.4 28.4 —Retention rate 85.6 80.4 60.9 36.9 21.1 —




Delayed university entry is significant and persistentOne to six year access rates for the 2008 to 2013 matric cohorts

13.0

11.7 12

.3

10.0

13.6 14

.6

16.7

16.4 17

.7

14.2

18.7

18.2

18.3 19

.7

15.7

19.0

19.3 20

.6

19.6

19.9

20.0

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

Cum

ulat

ive

univ

ersit

y ac

cess

rat

e

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Matric Cohort

1-year 2-year 2-year 4-year 5-year 6-year




Students take long to graduate - if at all4 vs 6-year completion rates for the 2008 matric cohort

36.9

32.3

38.8

31.8

34.9

36.0

52.7

32.9

32.9

41.5

39.0

11.3UNISA

Contact

Quintile 5

Quintile 4

Quintile 1-3

White

Asian

Coloured

Black

Degrees

Dip/Cert

Overall

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

4-year completion rate




Students take long to graduate - if at all4 vs 6-year completion rates for the 2008 matric cohort

36.9

32.3

38.8

31.8

34.9

36.0

52.7

32.9

32.9

41.5

39.0

11.3

58.1

47.8

61.6

53.5

53.8

62.1

71.6

54.0

54.2

62.9

60.6

27.9UNISA

Contact

Quintile 5

Quintile 4

Quintile 1-3

White

Asian

Coloured

Black

Degrees

Dip/Cert

Overall

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

4-year vs 6-year completion rate




University dropout is high, but not as high as often claimed*5-year dropout rates for the 2008 matric cohort

28.4

39.8

22.2

32.0

33.8

22.8

18.1

33.3

30.8

23.9

27.0

45.4UNISA

Contact

Quintile 5

Quintile 4

Quintile 1-3

White

Asian

Coloured

Black

Degrees

Dip/Cert

Overall

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

5-year dropout rate (%)



Matric average achievement Gateway subjects

Matric performance really matters for university outcomesMatric average and university access, completion, and dropout

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Rat

e

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Matric average achievement

1-year access 6-year access 6-year completion 5-year dropout




Gateway subjects really matter for university accessGateway subject participation and performance vs university access

25.1

31.1

68.6

89.3

14.3

5.7

25.0

46.1

26.1

38.3

85.1

93.3

14.9

2.6

34.3

84.0

80%60%40%

Wrote

80%60%40%

Wrote

80%60%40%

Wrote

80%60%40%

Wrote

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Mat

hsM

ath

Lite

racy

Phys

ical

Scie

nces

Engl

ishFA

L

6-year access rate (%)




Gateway subjects also matter for programme completionGateway subject participation and performance vs university completion

63.2

54.3

58.6

74.8

46.6

27.2

41.3

50.0

62.5

49.7

67.0

83.8

56.8

41.1

52.1

75.9

80%60%40%

Wrote

80%60%40%

Wrote

80%60%40%

Wrote

80%60%40%

Wrote

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Mat

hsM

ath

Lite

racy

Phys

ical

Scie

nces

Engl

ishFA

L

6-year completion rate (%)



University outcomes differences Intake performance differences

Big differences in outcomes across universitiesCompletion and dropout rates for the 2008 matric cohort, by university (2009 FTEN degrees)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Rat

e

DU

T

US

NW

U

CPU

T

UFH

RH

OD

ES UZ

UC

T

UP

UL

UN

IVEN UFS

UKZ

N

NM

MU

TUT

WSU U

J

WIT

S

UW

C

CU

T

UN

ISA

4-yearCompletion rate

6-yearCompletion rate

5-yearDropout rate



University outcomes differences Intake performance differences

Huge differences in matric performance across universitiesMatric average achievement distributions for the 2008 matric cohort, by university (2009 FTEN degrees)

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mat

ric a

vera

ge a

chie

vem

ent

UC

T

US

UP

WIT

S

RH

OD

ES

UKZ

N

NW

U

UFS

NM

MU UJ

UN

ISA

MU

T

VU

T

UL

DU

T

UW

C

UN

IVEN

CPU

T

UZ

WSU

UFH

TUT

CU

T



Access Success The crux Conditional differentials

Differentials in university accessUniversity access rates by race group - all candidates

16.619.8

43.3

47.4

8.8

14.2

36.3

42.5

71.2

63.1

72.8

63.4

53.7 53.3

66.1

59

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Black Coloured Indian White Black Coloured Indian White

Any undergraduate programmeUndergraduate degree programme

All pass types Bachelor passes

6-ye

ar a

cces

s ra

te (

%)




Differentials in university accessUniversity access rates by race group - all candidates vs Bachelor pass candidates

16.619.8

43.347.4

8.8

14.2

36.3

42.5

71.2

63.1

72.8

63.4

53.7 53.3

66.1

59

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Black Coloured Indian White Black Coloured Indian White



6-ye

ar a

cces

s ra

te (%

)




Differentials in university throughputCompletion and dropout for the 2008 NSC cohort (2009 FTEN only), by race and programme type

(All undergraduate) (Undergraduate degree)

4-year C 6-year C 5-year D 4-year C 6-year C 5-year D

Black African 31.8 53.5 32.0 31.7 55.8 24.0Coloured 34.9 53.8 33.8 34.1 54.8 29.6Indian/Asian 36.0 62.1 22.8 36.8 63.7 18.9White 52.7 71.6 18.1 52.7 72.3 16.2




Reality: significant matric performance differentialsCumulative matric average achievement distribution for the 2008 matric cohort

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

enta

ge

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Black Coloured Asian White




Reality: significant matric performance differentialsCumulative matric average achievement distribution for the 2008 matric cohort - Bachelor passes only

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

enta

ge

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Black Coloured Asian White




Conditional differentials in university outcomesUndergraduate access, completion, conversion, and dropout rates - with controls

Acc1 Acc6 Com4 Com6 Drop5 Conv6

(All undergraduate programmes)

Coloured −5.1*** −9.6*** −3.0*** −6.1*** 7.9*** −4.5***Indian/Asian −4.5*** =12.8*** −5.4*** −6.4*** 7.5*** −5.7***White =15.3*** =19.9*** 8.0*** 0.2 4.3*** −7.4***

(Undergraduate degree programmes only)

Coloured 0.5*** 0.3* −0.5 −2.6*** 6.7*** −0.1Indian/Asian 3.2*** 0.7** −0.7 −1.1 3.9*** 0.9***White −3.4*** −2.7*** 11.6*** 4.7*** 2.7*** 1.3***



Access Success Conditional differentials

Differentials in university accessUniversity access rates by school quintile - all candidates

9.211.2

14.7

23.5

45.2

4.4 5.57.4

13.7

34.9

63.265.8

67.6 68.470

44.647.8

49.653.1

62

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5



6-ye

ar a

cces

s ra

te (

%)




Differentials in university accessUniversity access rates by school quintile - all candidates vs Bachelor pass candidates

9.211.2

14.7

23.5

45.2

4.4 5.57.4

13.7

34.9

63.265.8

67.6 68.4 70

44.647.8

49.653.1

62

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5



6-ye

ar a

cces

s ra

te (%

)




Differentials in university throughputCompletion and dropout for the 2008 NSC cohort (2009 FTEN only), by quintile and programme type

(All undergraduate) (Undergraduate degree)

4-year C 6-year C 5-year D 4-year C 6-year C 5-year D

Quintile 1 34.8 55.5 32.2 36.5 59.5 24.2Quintile 2 32.8 55.7 31.7 34.0 59.2 22.6Quintile 3 32.1 52.3 34.9 32.6 55.5 26.5Quintile 4 32.9 54.2 30.8 33.4 56.7 23.7Quintile 5 41.5 62.9 23.9 42.8 65.1 19.4




Conditional differentials in university outcomesUndergraduate access, completion, conversion, and dropout rates - with controls

Acc1 Acc6 Com4 Com6 Drop5 Conv6

(All undergraduate programmes)

Quintile 2 −0.2** −0.1 −2.6*** −1.1 0.9 −0.3***Quintile 3 0.6*** 0.7*** −4.8*** −5.4*** 4.7*** −0.5***Quintile 4 2.6*** 3.0*** −8.0*** −7.1*** 3.4*** −0.1Quintile 5 6.2*** 5.6*** −8.4*** −6.7*** 2.6*** 0.7***

(Undergraduate degree programmes only)

Quintile 2 −0.4*** −0.3*** −4.1*** −2.2 0.6 −0.4***Quintile 3 0.4*** −0.5*** −7.2*** −7.2*** 5.0*** −0.7***Quintile 4 0.0 −0.5*** =12.0*** =10.9*** 4.0*** −1.3***Quintile 5 3.1*** 1.9*** =11.6*** −9.7*** 3.3*** 0.3**



Main insightsImportant new or reaffirmed findings

1. Very few matriculants obtain university qualifications - even fewer obtain degrees

2. Nearly 1/3 of Bachelor passers never go to university

3. Many matrics who go to university only do so two or more years after finishingschool

4. Many students take a long time to complete university qualifications or do notcomplete at all

5. Significant inequalities in university outcomes between race and socio-economicgroups remain evident

6. BUT (NB) much of these differentials appear to be the result of schoolachievement differentials

7. Students from less advantaged backgrounds who perform well in matric mayface relatively good university outcomes - small, but growing group



Thank youComment & questions


Date post:	20-Jul-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doanbao
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

FROM MATRIC INTO AND THROUGH UNIVERSITY University … Matric into and through... ·...

Documents