Upload
donald-hall
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report onthe Comprehensive Nature of Unisa
Presented to STLSC24 August 2009
Prof George SubotzkyExecutive Director: Information & Strategic Analysis
Acknowledgements
The follow DISA staff members provided valuable help and support in preparing the background information, draft report and this presentation:
– Herbert Zemann: Preparation of Information– Herman Visser: Preparation of Draft Report – Refiloe Sefadi: Preparation of Presentation
Background & Introduction• Maintaining appropriate range of
comprehensiveness a key issue in order to meet HRD, labour market and graduate attribute needs: external & internal pressures
• Central challenge: to ensure appropriate differentiation & articulation in relation to new HEQF
• This implies identifying – in knowledge and curriculum terms – appropriate exit levels and articulation streams
• Request from ED: Academic Planning– Preliminary overview– Disaggregated down to College level
Method
• Currently available information allows two views of comprehensiveness:– In terms of qualification levels, in relation to 2010
ministerial targets– In terms of university-type and technikon-type
qualifications• Views:
– Aggregated Unisa view, disaggregated by College– Time series: 2004-8 (HEMIS) 2009 (provisional
registrations, adjusted by active student rate), 2010 target
– Detailed tables of University-type and technikon-type information
• Full narrative report to follow
1st View of Comprehensiveness:by Qualification Level against 2010
Ministerial Targets
HEMIS 2008 vs 2010 Target, Unisa & Colleges
HEMIS 2008 Unisa
HEMIS 2008 CAES
HEMIS 2008
CEMS
HEMIS 2008 CHS
HEMIS 2008 CLAW
HEMIS 2008 CSET
Target 2010
Occa-sional
0.064 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
UG Cert/Dipl.
0.293 0.584 0.275 0.312 0.324 0.518 0.28
UG De-grees
0.539 0.279 0.629 0.505 0.631 0.453 0.62
PG be-low M
0.085 0.12 0.079 0.158 0.003 0.024 0.07
M & D De-grees
0.019 0.017 0.016 0.025 0.041 0.005 0.03
5%
25%
45%
65%
85%
Unisa, 2004-9 vs 2010 Target
HEMIS 2004
HEMIS 2005
HEMIS 2006
HEMIS 2007
HEMIS 2008
Prov Proj 2009
Target 2010
Occa-sional
0.047 0.049 0.063 0.071 0.064 0.061 NaN
UG Cert/Dipl.
0.289 0.277 0.271 0.273 0.293 0.261 0.28
UG De-grees
0.556 0.566 0.561 0.557 0.539 0.569 0.62
PG be-low M
0.075 0.075 0.077 0.077 0.085 0.075 0.07
M & D De-grees
0.033 0.033 0.028 0.022 0.019 0.033 0.03
5%
25%
45%
65%
85%
CAES, 2004-9 vs 2010 Target
HEMIS 2004
HEMIS 2005
HEMIS 2006
HEMIS 2007
HEMIS 2008
Prov Proj 2009
Target 2010
UG Cert/Dipl
0.683 0.645 0.615 0.603 0.584 0.56 0.28
UG De-grees
0.243 0.273 0.287 0.294 0.279 0.277 0.62
PG be-low M
0.066 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.12 0.137 0.07
M & D 0.00800000000000
001
0.016 0.023 0.02 0.017 0.025 0.03
5%25%45%65%85%
CEMS, 2004-9 vs 2010 Target
HEMIS 2004
HEMIS 2005
HEMIS 2006
HEMIS 2007
HEMIS 2008
Prov Proj 2009
Target 2010
UG Cert/Dipl
0.246 0.249 0.267 0.262 0.275 0.25 0.28
UG De-grees
0.666 0.664 0.644 0.648 0.629 0.648 0.62
PG be-low M
0.066 0.067 0.07 0.074 0.079 0.08400000000000
01
0.07
M & D 0.023 0.021 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.019 0.03
5%25%45%65%85%
CHS, 2004-9 vs 2010 Target
HEMIS 2004
HEMIS 2005
HEMIS 2006
HEMIS 2007
HEMIS 2008
Prov Proj 2009
Target 2010
UG Cert/Dipl
0.291 0.274 0.268 0.27 0.312 0.324 0.28
UG De-grees
0.496 0.512 0.529 0.54 0.505 0.499 0.62
PG be-low M
0.157 0.154 0.155 0.156 0.158 0.156 0.07
M & D 0.056 0.06 0.048 0.033 0.025 0.021 0.03
5%25%45%65%85%
CLAW, 2004-9 vs 2010 Target
HEMIS 2004
HEMIS 2005
HEMIS 2006
HEMIS 2007
HEMIS 2008
Prov Proj 2009
Target 2010
UG Cert/Dipl
0.393 0.331 0.3 0.322 0.324 0.305 0.28
UG De-grees
0.554 0.61 0.643 0.63 0.631 0.648 0.62
PG be-low M
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.07
M & D 0.05 0.056 0.054 0.046 0.041 0.044 0.03
5%25%45%65%85%
CSET, 2004-9 vs 2010 Target
HEMIS 2004
HEMIS 2005
HEMIS 2006
HEMIS 2007
HEMIS 2008
Prov Proj 2009
Target 2010
UG Cert/Dipl
0.496 0.503 0.455 0.507 0.518 0.504 0.28
UG De-grees
0.465 0.46 0.503 0.461 0.453 0.463 0.62
PG be-low M
0.03 0.029 0.034 0.026 0.024 0.026 0.07
M & D 0.00800000000000
001
0.007 0.00800000000000
001
0.006 0.005 0.007 0.03
5%25%45%65%85%
2nd View of Comprehensiveness:by University-type & Technikon-type
Qualifications
Unisa & Colleges by UG & PG University- and Technikon-type Qualifications
Unisa CAES CEMS CHS CLAW CSET
Occasional 0.049764171932010
4
NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
UG Technikon 0.232300436059447
0.66 0.3014 0.0268 0.3525 0.5863
UG University 0.600430719943045
0.1686 0.5913 0.7871 0.588 0.3782
PG Technikon 0.001790513482246
15
0.0005 0.0023 0.0001 0.0065 0.0007
PG University 0.115714158583252
0.1709 0.1051 0.186 0.053 0.0348
5%25%45%65%85%
Unisa by UG & PG University- and Technikon-type Qualifications, 2004-9
HEMIS 2004
HEMIS 2005
HEMIS 2006
HEMIS 2007
HEMIS 2008
Proj 2009
Occa-sional
0.047 0.049 0.063 0.071 0.064 0.049
UG Tech-nikon
0.267 0.259 0.248 0.252 0.253 0.228
UG Uni-versity
0.578 0.584 0.585 0.578 0.579 0.612
PG Tech-nikon
0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
PG Uni-versity
0.106 0.106 0.104 0.097 0.103 0.11
5%25%45%65%85%
CAES
2008 2009UG/PG Qualification Type N % N %
UG Technikon National Diploma 2 635 58,46% 2
432 56,09% B Tech 495 10,98% 430 9,92%
UG Technikon Total 3 130 69,45% 2
862 66,01%
UG UniversityProf 1st B degree(3yr) 2006+ 467 10,36% 490 11,30%
Professional First B Degree 260 5,77% 241 5,56%
UG University Total 727 16,13% 731 16,86%PG Technikon M Tech 5 0,11% 2 0,05%PG University Honours Degree 563 12,49% 617 14,23% Masters Degree 67 1,49% 78 1,80% Doctoral Degree 15 0,33% 46 1,06%PG University Total 645 14,31% 741 17,09%
Grand Total 4 507100,00
% 4
336100,00
%
CEMS
2008 2009UG/PG Qualification Type N % N %
UG Technikon National Diploma 34 942 24,92% 29 622 22,54% B Tech 6 396 4,56% 5 821 4,43% National Higher Certificate 4 731 3,37% 4 166 3,17%UG Technikon Total 46 069 32,85% 39 609 30,14%
UG UniversityProf 1st B degree(3yr) 2006+ 25 382 18,10% 24 862 18,92%
Professional First B Degree 562 0,40% 362 0,28%
General First B Degree 54 229 38,67% 52 491 39,94%UG University Total 80 173 57,18% 77 715 59,13%PG Technikon M Tech 273 0,19% 300 0,23%PG University Honours Degree 9 065 6,46% 8 709 6,63% Masters Degree 2 066 1,47% 2 327 1,77% Doctoral Degree 193 0,14% 189 0,14% Postgraduate Dip & Cert 2 381 1,70% 2 583 1,97%PG University Total 13 705 9,77% 13 808 10,51%
Grand Total 140 220100,00
% 131 432
100,00%
CHS 2008 2009
UG/PG Qualification Type N % N %UG Technikon National Diploma 2 234 2,96% 2 071 2,43% B Tech 185 0,25% 52 0,06% National Higher Certificate 9 0,01% 2 0,00% National Certificate 145 0,19% 165 0,19%UG Technikon Total 2 573 3,41% 2 290 2,68%
UG UniversityProf 1st B degree(3yr) 2006+ 16 216 21,49% 16 570 19,42%
Professional First B Degree 14 464 19,17% 19 140 22,43% General First B Degree 6 861 9,09% 6 449 7,56%
UnderGrad Dip/Cert: 1/2 yrs 15 975 21,17% 19 394 22,73%
Undergraduate Dip & Cert 4 826 6,39% 5 597 6,56%UG University Total 58 342 77,31% 67 150 78,71%PG Technikon M Tech 8 0,01% 9 0,01%PG University Honours Degree 8 569 11,35% 9 474 11,10% Masters Degree 1 697 2,25% 1 607 1,88% Doctoral Degree 676 0,90% 690 0,81% Postgraduate Dip & Cert 3 601 4,77% 4 094 4,80%PG University Total 14 543 19,27% 15 865 18,60%
Grand Total 75 466100,00
% 85 314100,00
%
CLAW
2008 2009UG/PG Qualification Type N % N %
UG Technikon National Diploma 8 794 31,95% 8 233 30,11% B Tech 1 484 5,39% 1 405 5,14%UG Technikon Total 10 278 37,34% 9 638 35,25%
UG UniversityProf 1st B degree(3yr) 2006+ 708 2,57% 419 1,53%
Professional First B Degree 14 446 52,49% 15 019 54,93%
General First B Degree 538 1,95% 637 2,33%
UG University Total 15 692 57,01% 16 075 58,80%
PG Technikon M Tech 185 0,67% 179 0,65%PG University Honours Degree 102 0,37% 94 0,34% Masters Degree 1 136 4,13% 1 215 4,44% Doctoral Degree 130 0,47% 139 0,51%PG University Total 1 368 4,97% 1 448 5,30%
Grand Total 27 523100,00
% 27 340
100,00%
CSET
2008 2009UG/PG Qualification Type N % N %
UG Technikon National Diploma 9 467 49,94% 9 111 49,19% B Tech 1 706 9,00% 1 649 8,90% National Certificate 140 0,74% 100 0,54%UG Technikon Total 11 313 59,68%
10 860 58,63%
UG University General First B Degree 6 848 36,12% 6 881 37,15% UG Dip/Cert: 1/2 yrs 223 1,18% 124 0,67%UG University Total 7 071 37,30% 7 005 37,82%PG Technikon M Tech 5 0,03% 13 0,07%PG University Honours Degree 458 2,42% 499 2,69% Masters Degree 71 0,37% 81 0,44% Doctoral Degree 39 0,21% 65 0,35%PG University Total 568 3,00% 645 3,48%
Grand Total 18 957100,00
% 18 523
100,00%
Conclusion
• Ensuring appropriate comprehensiveness is essential to meet national HE policy objectives, in particular enrolment targets, and in turn to address national human resource development, labour market and development needs
• Comprehensiveness profiled in terms of two views:– Qualification clusters in relation to the
ministerial targets– University and technikon-type qualifications
• On the basis of this profile, the detailed consideration of the optimal mix of programmes to achieve appropriate comprehensiveness can now proceed
Conclusion
• Pursuing an appropriate profile of comprehensiveness involves mediating the policy tensions between:– Maintaining comprehensiveness and
maximising subsidy– Balancing articulation and differentiation
streams across the vocational and academic programme divide
• Two current strategic objectives of the revisited 2015 Strategic Plan provide an ideal opportunity to achieve a more balanced comprehensiveness profile at Unisa:– Enrolment planning exercise– Revision of the PQM
Findings
• At the aggregated institutional level, Unisa is likely to meet the Ministerial targets– Occasional student must be factored in– Overall UG:PG ratio in line with target, but PG enrolments
above M worryingly declining with Hons and PG cert/dip enrolments rapidly expanding
– These trends have funding implications• Wide variations among colleges must be addressed through
enrolment planning initiative & PQM revision– Rampant growth in CHS
• Overall comprehensive nature of the institution needs to be analysed in terms of appropriate differentiation and articulation– Appropriate exit levels and articulation routes– Analysed in terms of curriculum and knowledge
components
Conclusion
• Coordinated planning at the college level constitutes the biggest challenge. This entails allowing for appropriate flexibility within the colleges, while maintaining a suitable overall institutional profile of comprehensiveness within the emerging enrolment planning framework.
• Ultimately, the effectiveness of Unisa's comprehensiveness profile should be measured in terms of labour market needs and employer satisfaction surveys
• The latter will provide the clearest indications of the quality and relevance of Unisa's qualifications and of the graduate attributes these engender