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