INSTITUTIONAL TYPES IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICAIan Bunting and Nico CloeteFebruary 2010

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

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.

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

TABLE 1: Input indicators

5

AVERAGES FOR 2006–2008 2008 INCOMEA

2008 heads (thousands)

B% SET majors

C% masters and

doctors students in head count

D% academic

staff with doctorates

EFTE students:academic staff

FSubsidy and fees per FTE student

(R’000)

GPrivate as % of total income

LARGE CONTACTUP 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 CONTACTCPUT 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 CONTACTUL 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

6

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 1FTE 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

WITS

UCT SU UPUKZN RU

UFSUW

C UJ ULVUT

NWU

NMMU UZUFH

CPUTDUT

Univen

CUTMUT

TUTW

SU

18 1817

1615 15

14 1413 13 13

12 1211 11

10 10 109

87 7

6 universities 9 universities 7 universities

8. Graph A: Institutional groupings based on input indicators

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.

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.

11

TABLE 3: Output indicators

12

AVERAGES FOR 2006–2008

A Success rates

BGraduation rates

CResearch output

per academic

DDoctoral graduates

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

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 1GRADUATION RATES

22% and above 18% - 21% Below 18%

Weighting 3 2 1RESEARCH OUTPUT PER ACADEMIC 1.2 and above 0.50 - 1.19% Below 0.50

Weighting 3 2 1DOCTORAL GRADUATES PER ACADEMIC 0.10 and above 0.05 - 0.09 Below 0.50

Weighting 3 2 1

Table 4

Output indicator groupings

1414

6 universities 5 universities 11 universities

15. Graph B: Institutional groupings based on output indicators

UPUCT RU SU

NWUW

ITS UJ

UKZN

NMMUUW

CUFS

DUT UZ ULCPUT

CUT

Univen

MUTTUT

VUTUFH

WSU

12 12 1211

10 10

8 87 7 7

6 6 6 6 6 65 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) = 2.0c) 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

UCT UPW

ITS SU RUUKZN

NWU

UWC UJ

UFS

NMMU UL UZCPUT

Univen

DUTCUT

UFHMUT

TUTVUT

WSU

3028 28 28

26

2322

21 21 2119 19

17 1716 16 16

15 15

1211 11

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.

Graph: 2008 undergraduate qualifiers by grouping

20

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

UKZNGroup 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

GROUP X GROUP Y GROUP Z UNISA0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

23%

40%

17%21%

0%

17%

73%

10%

41%

34%

10%15%

30%

24%

37%

9%

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,

UKZNGroup 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

GROUP X GROUP Y GROUP Z UNISA0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

41%

33%

8%

17%

60%

28%

6% 6%

61%

28%

5% 6%

62%

21%

6%

11%

P/grad below mastersMastersDoctorsRes public units

22

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

UKZNGroup 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

GROUP X GROUP Y GROUP Z UNISA0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

24%

38%

17%21%

0%

17%

73%

10%

29%

39%

20%

12%16%

24%

51%

8%

U/grad dips: 1-year & 2-years U/grad dips: 3-years3-year u/grad degrees4-6 year u/grad degrees

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

UKZNGroup 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

GROUP X GROUP Y GROUP Z UNISA0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

18%

28%

45%

9%

53%

32%

9%6%

57%

29%

9%5%

P/grad below mastersMastersDoctors

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