the south african higher education system: key policies and statistics
DESCRIPTION
The South African Higher Education System: Key Policies and Statistics Forum on Higher Education in South Africa and China 26–27 November 2013. Nico Cloete 26 November 2013. Policy Frameworks in SA. Policies: Implementation strategies – legislation and funding - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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 [email protected]