The South African Higher Education System: Key Policies and Statistics

Forum on Higher Education in South Africa and China

26–27 November 2013

Nico Cloete26 November 2013

Policy Frameworks in SA

1. Policies: Implementation strategies – legislation and funding2. Incentives: direct – indirect3. Symbolic (compensatory legitimation) 4. National – institutional (development- support- incentives)

Policy Moments in SA

• 1996/7 National Commission on Higher Education Report, Green and White Paper (1997)

• 2000/1 Council Higher Education Differentiation report, National Plan on Higher Education

• 2004 mergers of intuitions and funding linked to enrolment planning

• 2008 new funning framework fully operational, end of Programme Qualification Mix reviews

• 2011 latest accredited HEMIS data, and start of Green Paper and National Development Plan 2030

process.

Diagnosis: National Planning Commission (2011)

From Numerous Reviews (World Bank; Harvard; WEF)

1. low participation and high attrition rates

2. medium knowledge producing

3. insufficient capacity for adequate skills production

4. differentiated (not formal policy)

5. minority (+/- five ) of ‘chronic crisis’ institutions (bad press)

Shift from Equity to Development, and the Return of Equity (Transformation Oversight Committee, 2013)

SA continually paralysed by inability to prioritise

Shape of the SA Post-School System (2010)

4

5

Gross enrolment ratio and global competitiveness

6

Graduates by field of study

7

Throughput of graduates

8

Race composition of SA universities

9

Research output of academic staff

10

Impact of SA science

Figure 2: R&D expenditure

12

Higher education income

13

A differentiated public university system

Policy Focus to Strengthening the Doctorate1. Doctoral enrolment must grow – absent in NCHE, symbolic in

White Paper, stronger in National Plan and strong funding from 2008 (ranging from $40 000 to $60 000 per student/graduate).Priority in NDP 2030 with graduate targets (from 1500 to 5000 in 2030. Focus on SET and business management.

2. Output efficiency must improve - from 1997 focus on efficiency in general, 2008 funding weak on efficiency, 2012 Green Paper and NDP much more explicit (throughput of 75%). CHET and CREST performance and efficiency indicators (symbolic)

3. Academic staff must have PhD - Financial and Fiscal

Commission (2012) and NDP (increase from 35% to 75%)

4. Internationalisation - NPHE (2001) and Green Paper (2012) encourages post graduate recruitment, particularly SADC

5. Differentiation – policy covert/ambiguous, funding explicit

Figure 1: The rise of doctorates (1998–2006)

Growth in PhD graduates in South Africa: 1920-2011

 

16

Source: Garbers (1960), DNO (1982), DoE (1999), DHET (2013)

Average annual growth rate of PhD graduates: 1920–2011

17

Source: Garbers (1960), DNO (1982), DoE (1999), DHET (2013)

Average shares of the doctoral graduates in the various fields of study, 1996 to 2011

18

Source: DoE (1999), SAPSE; DHET (2013), HEMIS data (2000-2013)

Progress of 2004 intakes of new doctoral students after 7 years, according to bands of performance

19

Progress of the 2004 cohort of new doctoral entrants by nationality, gender and race after 7 years

20

Source: DHET (2013). PhD cohort studies.

21

Comparison of international PhD completion rates Country Period of analysis

Norway (2002/3 cohort)

8 years

United States(1992/3/4)

10 years

Canada(2001 cohort)

9 years

 

United Kingdom(1996/7 cohort)

 

7 years

South Africa(2004 cohort)

7 years

International

(FT & PT)

(PT)

(FT)

(FT & PT)

(FT & PT)

International

(FT & PT)

(FT & PT)

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

52%

46%

34%

71%

61%

71%

67%

57%

76%

Completion Rate

Percentage of the academic staff with doctorates by institution, 2011

22

Source: DHET (2013), HEMIS data (2000-2013)

Comparison of PhD production in South Africa with a number of selected OECD countries, 2000 and 2011

23

Country

2011 SET PhD graduates as % of

all 2011 PhD graduates

Average annual growth rate in

total PhDs 2000 - 2011

Population

2011 SET PhD graduates per

100,000 of 2011 population

2011 total PhD graduates per

100,000 of 2011 population

2011

Australia 58.4% 4.7% 22 324 000 15.9 27.2Canada 62.8% 3.3% 34 483 980 10.3 16.5Czech Republic 61.8% 9.6% 10 496 670 14.5 23.5Finland 61.2% -0.2% 5 388 272 21.1 34.4Germany 72.5% 0.5% 81 797 670 24.2 33.4Hungary 52.9% 5.1% 9 971 726 6.5 12.4Ireland 64.1% 10.1% 4 576 748 20.3 31.6Italy 63.8% 11.1% 60 723 570 11.8 18.6Korea 59.7% 6.0% 49 779 440 14.0 23.4Norway 63.9% 6.4% 4 953 000 16.7 26.2Portugal 52.1% 3.5% 10 557 560 11.4 21.9Slovak Republic 52.0% 12.8% 5 398 384 16.1 31.0Switzerland 68.5% 2.2% 7 912 398 30.1 44.0Turkey 55.7% 7.4% 73 950 000 3.5 6.3United Kingdom 59.9% 5.1% 61 761 000 19.5 32.5United States 55.4% 4.5% 311 591 900 13.0 23.4South Africa 54.2% 4.5% 51 770 560 1.6 3.0

Source: OECD (2013) Graduates by field of study, data extracted on 4 July 2013.

Where Are We at End of 2013?

1. Autonomy - a big issue for some universities, but Higher Education SA divided

2. Differentiation – official policy but no clear implementation steps

3. Knowledge production - (postgraduate, doctorate, research output) very strong with Presidency and Dept Science and Technology

4. Efficiency – DST, DHET and CHE using performance indicators

5. Equity – Equity Index (DHET)

Shift from Equity to Development, and the Return of Equity (Transformation Oversight Committee, 2013)

SA continually paralysed by inability to prioritise

25

Dr Nico Cloetencloete@chet.org.zawww.chet.org.za