RESEARCH REPORT

November 2013

STATUS OF THE BURSARY/SCHOLARSHIP FUNDING

LANDSCAPE IN SOUTH AFRICA 2013

Commissioned by

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

OF SOUTH AFRICA (HRDC)

Compiled by

THE BUREAU OF MARKET RESEARCH (BMR), UNISA, College of Economic and Management Sciences

AND SIYAZITHANDA PROJECTS

STATUS OF THE BURSARY/SCHOLARSHIP FUNDING LANDSCAPE IN SOUTH AFRICA

2013

Study commissioned by

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA (HRDC)

Report compiled by

Mrs J Poalses (BMR, Researcher, MA Research Psychology)

Dr S Koyana

(Siyazithanda Projects, PhD)

CR043 2013

i

CONTENTS

Page LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... x LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................. xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... xiv ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................ xvi CHAPTER 1: OBJECTIVES, METHOD AND SCOPE 1.1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 2

1.3 RESEARCH AIM AND SCOPE ................................................................................... 18 1.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 20 CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 21 2.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 21

2.2.1 Exploratory research ............................................................................................. 21 2.2.2 Descriptive research .............................................................................................. 21 2.2.2.1 Sample frame ......................................................................................................... 22 2.2.2.2 Sample size .............................................................................................................. 23 2.2.2.3 Research instrument ............................................................................................... 25 2.2.2.4 Data collection ......................................................................................................... 28 2.2.2.5 Data capturing ........................................................................................................ 31 2.3 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ................................................................................ 31

2.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 31

ii

CHAPTER 3: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 32 3.2 RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS ...................................................................................... 32 3.3 SECONDARY NATIONAL STATISTICS ...................................................................... 43 3.4 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ............................. 47 3.4.1 HEIs ......................................................................................................................... 47 3.4.1.1 University context ................................................................................................... 48 3.4.1.2 Funding sources ...................................................................................................... 52 3.4.1.3 Service delivery ...................................................................................................... 60 3.4.1.4 Beneficiary profile ................................................................................................... 61 3.4.1.5 Donor interventions ................................................................................................ 76 3.4.1.6 Access to employment ............................................................................................ 77 3.4.1.7 Funds Management ............................................................................................... 79 3.4.2 Corporations/foundations/state-owned companies/NGOs ................................ 82 3.4.2.1 Corporate context ................................................................................................... 82 3.4.2.2 Bursary allocation ................................................................................................... 87 3.4.2.3 Financial allocation .............................................................................................. 120 3.4.3 International/foreign funders ............................................................................. 128 3.4.3.1 International context ............................................................................................ 128 3.4.3.2 Bursary allocation ................................................................................................. 129 3.4.3.3 Financial allocation .............................................................................................. 141 3.4.4 National government funders ............................................................................. 143 3.4.4.1 National government context .............................................................................. 143 3.4.4.2 Bursary allocation ................................................................................................. 146 3.4.4.3 Access to employment .......................................................................................... 164 3.4.4.4 Financial allocation .............................................................................................. 166 3.4.5 Provincial government funders ........................................................................... 171 3.4.5.1 Provincial government context ............................................................................ 172 3.4.5.2 Bursary allocation ................................................................................................. 183 3.4.5.3 Access to employment .......................................................................................... 215 3.4.5.4 Financial allocation .............................................................................................. 218 3.5 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION .............................. 226

iii

3.5.1 HEIs ....................................................................................................................... 226 3.5.1.1 ODL university ...................................................................................................... 227 3.5.1.2 Public universities ................................................................................................. 232 3.5.1.3 Universities of technology .................................................................................... 249 3.5.2 Corporations, NGOs and foundations ................................................................. 251 3.5.2.1 Corporations ......................................................................................................... 251 3.5.2.2 Foundations .......................................................................................................... 261 3.5.3 National government .......................................................................................... 265 3.5.3.1 National government departments ..................................................................... 266 3.5.3.2 National government agencies ............................................................................ 270 3.5.4 International donors ............................................................................................ 275 3.5.4.1 Australian Awards Scholarship Programme ......................................................... 275 3.5.5 Bursary website hosts ......................................................................................... 276 3.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 282 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 283 4.2 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................................. 283 4.3 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH FINDINGS .................................................................... 287 4.4 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................ 398 4.5 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 398 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 302

ANNEXURE ......................................................................................................................... 304

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

CHAPTER 1 1.1 TOTAL INCOME OF PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES (RANDS BILLIONS) ............................... 5

1.2 SOURCE OF INCOME FOR FEES, ALL SEVEN INSTITUTIONS, BY RACE .................. 12

1.3 STUDENTS WITH BURSARIES, SCHOLARSHIPS, AND NSFAS FUNDING IN SEVEN

INSTITUTIONS IN 2002 (%) ..................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 2 2.1 QUANTITATIVE SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY STAKEHOLDER GROUP .................... 23

2.2 QUALITATIVE PARTICIPANT DISTRIBUTION BY STAKEHOLDER GROUP .............. 24

CHAPTER 3

3.1 NATIONAL NSFAS AWARDS FOR 2008-2011........................................................... 44

3.2 2011 HEADCOUNT ENROLMENTS IN PUBLIC HEIs .................................................. 45

3.3 PRIORITY PROFESSION QUALIFICATIONS OFFERED BY HEI .................................. 48

3.4 CORPORATE FUNDING BY QUALIFICATION FIELD ................................................ 52

3.5 NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING BY QUALIFICATION FIELD .......................... 53

3.6 PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING BY QUALIFICATION FIELD ....................... 53

3.7 INTERNATIONAL FUNDING BY QUALIFICATION FIELD ......................................... 54

3.8 INDIVIDUALS/FAMILY TRUST FUNDING BY QUALIFICATION FIELD ..................... 55

3.9 STATE OWNED COMPANIES FUNDING BY QUALIFICATION FIELD ....................... 55

3.10 ENDOWMENT FUNDING BY QUALIFICATION FIELD ............................................. 56

3.11 UNDERGRADUATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY RACE: AFRICAN ........................... 62

3.12 UNDERGRADUATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY RACE: COLOURED ........................ 63

3.13 UNDERGRADUATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY RACE: INDIAN .............................. 63

v

3.14 UNDERGRADUATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY RACE: WHITE ............................... 64

3.15 POSTGRADUATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY RACE: AFRICAN ............................... 65

3.16 POSTGRADUATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY RACE: COLOURED ........................... 65

3.17 POSTGRADUATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY RACE: INDIAN ................................. 66

3.18 POSTGRADUATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY RACE: WHITE .................................. 66

3.19 UNDERGRADUATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY GENDER: MALE ........................... 67

3.20 UNDERGRADUATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY GENDER: FEMALE ........................ 67

3.21 POSTGRADUATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY GENDER: MALE ............................... 68

3.22 POSTGRADUATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY GENDER: FEMALE ........................... 69

3.23 FUNDS DISTRIBUTION TO SOUTH AFRICAN STUDENTS BY LEVEL OF STUDY: CERTIFICATES AND DIPLOMAS .............................................................................. 69

3.24 FUNDS DISTRIBUTION TO SOUTH AFRICAN STUDENTS BY LEVEL OF STUDY: UNDERGRADUATE ................................................................................................. 70

3.25 FUNDS DISTRIBUTION TO SOUTH AFRICAN STUDENTS BY LEVEL OF STUDY: HONOURS ............................................................................................................... 71

3.26 FUNDS DISTRIBUTION TO SOUTH AFRICAN STUDENTS BY LEVEL OF STUDY: MASTER’S ............................................................................................................... 71

3.27 FUNDS DISTRIBUTION TO SOUTH AFRICAN STUDENTS BY LEVEL OF STUDY: DOCTORAL .............................................................................................................. 72

3.28 FUNDS DISTRIBUTION TO FOREIGN STUDENTS BY LEVEL OF STUDY: CERTIFICATES AND DIPLOMAS .............................................................................. 72

3.29 FUNDS DISTRIBUTION TO FOREIGN STUDENTS BY LEVEL OF STUDY: UNDERGRADUATE ................................................................................................. 73

3.30 FUNDS DISTRIBUTION TO FOREIGN STUDENTS BY LEVEL OF STUDY: HONOURS ............................................................................................................... 73

3.31 FUNDS DISTRIBUTION TO FOREIGN STUDENTS BY LEVEL OF STUDY: MASTER’S ............................................................................................................... 74

3.32 FUNDS DISTRIBUTION TO FOREIGN STUDENTS BY LEVEL OF STUDY: DOCTORAL .............................................................................................................. 74

vi

3.33 FUNDS DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY GROUPS .................................................... 75

3.34 EMPLOYABILITY STATUS BY DISCIPLINE AT HEI .................................................... 78

3.35 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY CORPORATE FUNDERS ............................................ 79

3.36 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FUNDERS ..................... 80

3.37 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT FUNDERS ................... 81

3.38 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY INDIVIDUALS/FAMILY TRUSTS .............................. 81

3.39 INDUSTRY IN WHICH CORPORATE DONORS OPERATE CORE BUSINESS ............. 83

3.40 PREFERRED QUALIFICATION FIELDS ...................................................................... 87

3.41 NUMBER OF BURSARIES BY STUDY LEVEL ............................................................ 89

3.42 BENEFICIARIES ....................................................................................................... 91

3.43 STUDENT SELECTION CRITERIA ............................................................................. 94

3.44 STUDY DISCIPLINE SELECTION CRITERIA ............................................................... 96

3.45 HEI SELECTION CRITERIA ....................................................................................... 98

3.46 EXPENSES COVERED ............................................................................................. 103

3.47 VALUE-ADDED SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 105

3.48 HEIs SUPPORTED WITH BURSARY FUNDING ...................................................... 109

3.49 FUNDS DISBURSEMENT ....................................................................................... 112

3.50 STUDENT THROUGHPUT ...................................................................................... 114

3.51 ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT ................................................................................... 119

3.52 BUDGET AND SPEND ............................................................................................ 121

3.53 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY HEI ......................................................................... 123

3.54 FUNDING DISRIBUTION BY RACE ........................................................................ 124

3.55 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY GENDER ................................................................. 125

3.56 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY GROUP ................................................ 125

vii

3.57 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISCIPLINE AND STUDY LEVEL: ENGINEERING .... 126

3.58 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISCIPLINE AND STUDY LEVEL: SOCIAL SCIENCES ............................................................................................................. 126

3.59 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISCIPLINE AND STUDY LEVEL: AGRICULTURE ... 127

3.60 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISCIPLINE AND STUDY LEVEL: FINANCE ............ 127

3.61 INDUSTRY FOCUS IN SOUTH AFRICA ................................................................... 128

3.62 NUMBER OF BURSARIES BY QUALIFICATION LEVEL ........................................... 129

3.63 PREFERRED QUALIFICATION FIELDS .................................................................... 130

3.64 BENEFICIARIES ..................................................................................................... 130

3.65 STUDENT SELECTION CRITERIA ........................................................................... 131

3.66 STUDY DISCIPLINE CRITERIA ................................................................................ 132

3.67 HEI SELECTION CRITERIA ..................................................................................... 133

3.68 EXPENSES COVERED ............................................................................................. 134

3.69 VALUE-ADDED SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 135

3.70 HEIs SUPPORTED WITH BURSARY FUNDING ...................................................... 137

3.71 FUNDS DISBURSEMENT ....................................................................................... 138

3.72 STUDENT THROUGHPUT ...................................................................................... 139

3.73 ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT .................................................................................... 140

3.74 BUDGET AND SPEND ............................................................................................ 141

3.75 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY HEI ......................................................................... 142

3.76 PREFERRED QUALIFICATION FIELDS .................................................................... 143

3.77 PREFERRED QUALIFICATION FIELDS BY DEPARTMENT/AGENCY/COUNCIL ...... 144

3.78 NUMBER OF BURSARIES FOR STUDENTS AND STAFF BY STUDY LEVEL ............. 145

3.79 BENEFICIARIES ..................................................................................................... 147

viii

3.80 STUDENT SELECTION CRITERIA ........................................................................... 148

3.81 STUDY DISCIPLINE SELECTION CRITERIA ............................................................. 150

3.82 HEI SELECTION CRITERIA ..................................................................................... 151

3.83 EXPENSES COVERED ............................................................................................. 152

3.84 VALUE-ADDED SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 154

3.85 HEIs SUPPORTED WITH BURSARY FUNDING ...................................................... 157

3.86 FUNDS DISBURSEMENT ....................................................................................... 159

3.87 THROUGHPUT: STUDENTS .................................................................................. 160

3.88 THROUGHPUT: STAFF ......................................................................................... 161

3.89 ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT ................................................................................... 164

3.90 BUDGET AND SPEND ............................................................................................ 166

3.91 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY HEI ......................................................................... 168

3.92 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY RACE ...................................................................... 169

3.93 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY GENDER ................................................................. 170

3.94 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISCIPLINE AND STUDY LEVEL: ENGINEERING ... 170

3.95 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISCIPLINE AND STUDY LEVEL: HEALTH .............. 171

3.96 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISCIPLINE AND STUDY LEVEL: AGRICULTURE ... 171

3.97 PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATION ............................ 172

3.98 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUNICIPALITY TYPE ........................................................ 173

3.99 PREFERRED QUALIFICATION FIELDS .................................................................... 176

3.100 NUMBER BURSARIES BY STUDY LEVEL: STUDENTS ........................................... 178

3.101 NUMBER BURSARIES BY STUDY LEVEL: STAFF ................................................... 180

3.102 BENEFICIARIES ..................................................................................................... 184

3.103 STUDENT SELECTION CRITERIA ........................................................................... 187

ix

3.104 STUDY DISCIPLINE SELECTION CRITERIA ............................................................. 190

3.105 HEI SELECTION CRITERIA ..................................................................................... 192

3.106 EXPENSES COVERED ............................................................................................. 195

3.107 VALUE-ADDED SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 198

3.108 HEIs SUPPORTED WITH BURSARY FUNDING ..................................................... 204

3.109 FUNDS DISBURSEMENT ....................................................................................... 207

3.110 THROUGHPUT: STUDENTS .................................................................................. 209

3.111 THROUGHPUT: STAFF ......................................................................................... 210 3.112 ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT ................................................................................... 215

3.113 BUDGET AND SPEND ............................................................................................ 218

3.114 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY HEI ......................................................................... 220

3.115 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY RACE ...................................................................... 222

3.116 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY GENDER ................................................................. 223

3.117 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISCIPLINE AND STUDY LEVEL: ENGINEERING .... 224

3.118 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISCIPLINE AND STUDY LEVEL: HEALTH .............. 224

3.119 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISCIPLINE AND STUDY LEVEL: EDUCATION ....... 225

3.120 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISCIPLINE AND STUDY LEVEL: AGRICULTURE ... 225

3.121 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY DISCIPLINE AND STUDY LEVEL: FINANCE ............ 226

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 3.1 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH DONORS CONTRIBUTING THE MOST TO STUDENTS IN TOTAL .............................................................................................. 60 3.2 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH DONORS CONTRIBUTING THE MOST TO RESPECTIVE STUDENTS .......................................................................................... 61

xi

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit Page

CHAPTER 1 1.1 PRIORITY PROFESSION AREAS - SCARCE SKILL FIELDS OF STUDY ........................ 19

CHAPTER 2

2.1 FIELDWORK CONTROL MEASURES ........................................................................ 30

CHAPTER 3 3.1 INVITEES ................................................................................................................. 33 3.2 PARTICIPANTS BY INSTITUTION ............................................................................ 39 3.3 ROLE IN ASSISTING THE STUDENT TO OBTAIN A BURSARY ................................. 49 3.4 RESPONSIBILITY AFTER AWARDING BURSARY ..................................................... 50 3.5 MONITORING ACADEMIC PROGRESS ................................................................... 51 3.6 DONORS CONTRIBUTING MOST BURSARIES TO HEI ............................................ 56 3.7 DONORS CONTRIBUTING MOST BURSARIES TO RESPECTIVE STUDENTS ........... 58 3.8 SUCCESSFUL INTERVENTIONS BY DONORS TO INCREASE THROUGHPUT RATE . 76 3.9 PERCEIVED CHALLENGES EXPERIENCED BY DONORS ........................................... 76 3.10 MARKETING STRATEGY TO CREATE AWARENESS .............................................. 101 3.11 REQUIREMENTS EXPECTED FROM STUDENTS UPON BURSAY ALLOCATION .... 107 3.12 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MONITORING ......................................................... 115 3.13 CHALLENGES ........................................................................................................ 117 3.14 MARKETING STRATEGY TO CREATE AWARENESS .............................................. 133 3.15 REQUIREMENTS EXPECTED FROM STUDENTS UPON BURSAY ALLOCATION .... 136 3.16 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MONITORING ......................................................... 139

xii

3.17 CHALLENGES ........................................................................................................ 140 3.18 INSTANCES WHERE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT COULD CONSIDER FUNDING .. 146 3.19 REQUIREMENTS EXPECTED FROM STUDENTS UPON BURSARY ALLOCATION .. 155 3.20 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MONITORING ......................................................... 161 3.21 CHALLENGES ........................................................................................................ 163 3.22 EMPLOYMENT SUCCESS ...................................................................................... 165 3.23 PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY PROVINCE ..................................... 174 3.24 INSTANCES WHERE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT COULD

CONSIDER FUNDING ............................................................................................ 183 3.25 REQUIREMENTS EXPECTED FROM STUDENTS UPON BURSARY ALLOCATION .. 201 3.26 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MONITORING ......................................................... 211 3.27 CHALLENGES ........................................................................................................ 213 3.28 EMPLOYMENT SUCCESS ...................................................................................... 216 3.29 ODL UNIVERSITY: UNISA ..................................................................................... 228

3.30 PUBLIC UNIVERSITY: NMMU .............................................................................. 233

3.31 PUBLIC UNIVERSITY: UCT .................................................................................... 236

3.32 PUBLIC UNIVERSITY: UJ ...................................................................................... 237

3.33 PUBLIC UNIVERSITY: MEDUNSA ......................................................................... 239

3.34 PUBLIC UNIVERSITY: UP ...................................................................................... 240

3.35 PUBLIC UNIVERSITY: STELLENBOSCH ................................................................. 242

3.36 PUBLIC UNIVERSITY: WITS .................................................................................. 245

3.37 UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY: TUT ................................................................... 250

3.38 CORPORATION: ANGLO AMERICAN ................................................................... 252

3.39 CORPORATION: BESTMED .................................................................................. 252

xiii

3.40 CORPORATION: GROUP FIVE .............................................................................. 253

3.41 CORPORATION: NEDBANK .................................................................................. 254

3.42 CORPORATION: OLD MUTUAL ........................................................................... 254

3.43 CORPORATION: SAICA ........................................................................................ 255

3.44 CORPORATION: SASOL ....................................................................................... 256

3.45 CORPORATION: SAIEE ......................................................................................... 257

3.46 FOUNDATION: NRF ............................................................................................. 262

3.47 FOUNDATION: REAP ........................................................................................... 262

3.48 NATIONAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT: TRADE AND INDUSTRY (dti) .......... 266

3.49 NATIONAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT: BASIC EDUCATION (DBE) ............... 268

3.50 NATIONAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT: HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING (DHET) ................................................................................................. 268 3.51 NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY: NSFAS ....................................................... 271

3.52 NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY: NSF ........................................................... 272

3.53 BURSARY WEBSITE HOST: CAREER WISE ........................................................... 277

3.54 BURSARY WEBSITE HOST: CAREER PLANET ....................................................... 279

3.55 BURSARY WEBSITE HOST: GO STUDY.MOBI ...................................................... 281

xiv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following are acknowledged for their support and assistance during the research study:

The Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) of South Africa for commissioning

Siyazithanda Projects and the Bureau of Market Research (BMR) to conduct the study

on the bursary landscape in South Africa.

The Technical Task Team (TTT) appointed by the HRDC, especially:

o Ms Chantyl Mulder (TTT Chairperson, SAICA)

o Ms Conny Matjokana (Professional TTT Administrator, HRDC)

o Ms Carmel Marock (Private consultant)

o Ms Nicky van Driel (Private consultant)

o Ms Darryn von Maltitz (DHET)

o Dr Phethiwe Matutu (DST)

o Mr Bheki Hadebe (DST)

The respondents who willingly participated in the study, including:

o Higher education institutions (HEIs)

o Corporations

o Foundations

o NGOs

o Embassies

o Bursary website hosts

o National government departments

o National government agencies

o National government councils

o Provincial government departments

o Local government departments

o Municipalities (local, district and metropolitan)

xv

The research teams and administrative staff, especially:

Siyazithanda Projects:

o Dr Siphokazi Koyana (Executive Director)

o Ms Philipa Gqolana (Executive Assistant)

o Ms Omphemetse Mooketsi (Research Assistant)

o Mr Tebogo Lobaka (Research Assistant)

BMR:

o Ms Jacolize Poalses (Researcher)

o Prof Pierre Joubert (Research Director)

o Prof Deon Tustin (Executive Research Director)

o Ms Jeantel Hardy (Technical survey management support)

o Ms Marietjie Coetzee (Data Analysis Specialist)

o Ms Margie Nowak (Interview transcriptions and technical editing)

o Ms Cherryl Kemp (Language editing)

o BMR Fieldworkers (Computer-Aided Telephonic Interviews)

o Mr Herman Visser (Senior Specialist, Unisa, DISA)

xvi

ACRONYMS

AGRISETA Agriculture Sector Education and Training Authority

ARC Agricultural Research Council

ASSAF The Academy of Science of South Africa

BANKSETA Banking Sector Education and Training Authority

BMR Bureau of Market Research

CATHSETA Culture, Arts, Tourism, Hospitality and Sports Sector Education and

Training Authority

CATI Computer-aided telephonic interview

CETA Construction Education Training Authority

CHE Council for Higher Education

CHIETA SETA Chemical Industries Education and Training Authority

CPUT Cape Peninsula University of Technology

CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

CTFLSETA Clothing, Textiles, Footwear and Leather Manufacturing Sector

Education and Training (also known as FP&M SETA)

CUT Central University of Technology

DAAD German Academic Exchange Service

DHET Department of Higher Education and Training

DoL Department of Labour

DPSA Department Public Service and Administration

DST Department Science and Technology

dti Department of Trade and Industry

DUT Durban University of Technology

ECSA Engineering Council of South Africa

EFT Electronic funds transfer

ETDP SETA Education Training and Practices Sector Education and Training

Authority

EWSETA Energy and Water Sector Education and Training Authority

FAO Financial Aid Office

xvii

FASSET SETA Finance and Accounting Services Sector Education and Training

Authority

FEDUSA Federation of Unions of South Africa

FET Further Education and Training

FOODBEV SETA Food and Beverages Manufacturing Industry Sector Education and

Training Authority

FP&M SETA Fibre Processing Manufacturing Sector Education and Training (also

known as CTFL SETA)

GCRA Gauteng City Region Academy

GPA Grade Point Average

HBI Historically Black institution

HBU Historically Black university

HEDSA Higher Education Disability Services Association

HEI Higher education institution

HEMIS Higher Education Management Information System

HPCSA Health Professions Council of South Africa

HRDC Human Resource Development Council of South Africa

HSRC Human Sciences Research Council

HWSETA Health and Welfare Sector Education and Training Authority

HWU Historically White university

IDC Industrial Development Corporation

INSETA Insurance Sector Education and Training Authority

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

LSSA Law Society of South Africa

Medunsa Medical University of South Africa, University of Limpopo

MEIBC Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council

MERSETA Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services Sector Education

and Training Authority

MFRC The Micro Finance Regulatory Council in South Africa

MICT SETA Media, Information and Communication Technologies Sector

Education and Training Authority

MRC South African Medical Research Council

xviii

MUT Mangosuthu University of Technology

MQA Mining Qualifications Authority

NAC National Arts Council of South Africa

NAMDEB Namibia De Beers Diamond Corporation

NECSA South African Nuclear Energy Corporation

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGO Nongovernmental Organisation

NRF National Research Foundation

NMMU Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

NSFAS National Student Financial Aid Scheme

NURCHA National Urban Reconstruction and Housing Agency

NWU North-West University

NYDA National Youth Development Agency

OER Open Educational Resources

OMIGSA Old Mutual Investment Group South Africa

PSCBC Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council

PSETA Public Service Sector Education and Training Authority

RBM Richards Bay Minerals

REAP Rural Education Access Programme

RU Rhodes University

SACC South African Council of Churches

SACQSP The South African Council for the Quantity Surveying Profession

SACTWU Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers' Union

SAICA South African Institute of Chartered Accountants

SAIEE South African Institute of Electrical Engineers

SALGBC South African Local Government Bargaining Council

SAMA South African Medical Association

SAMSA South African Maritime Safety Authority

SANC South African Nursing Council

SANSA South African National Space Agency

SAPC South African Pharmacy Council

SASSETA Safety and Security Sector Education and Training Authority

xix

SERVICES SETA Services Sector Education and Training Authority

SETA Sector Education and Training Authority

SOC State-owned companies

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

TEFSA Tertiary Education Fund of South Africa

TETA Transport Education and Training Authority

TTT Technical Task Team

TUT Tshwane University of Technology

TWG Technical Working Group

CUT University of Cape Town

UFS University of the Free State

UKZN University of KwaZulu Natal

UL University of Limpopo

Unisa University of South Africa

UP University of Pretoria

UV University of Venda

UWC University of the Western Cape

UZ University of Zululand

VUT Vaal University of Technology

WBHO Wilson Bayly Holmes – Ovcon

W&R SETA Wholesale and Retail Sector Education and Training Authority

WITS University of Witwatersrand

WRC Water Research Commission

WSU Walter Sisulu University

1

CHAPTER 1

OBJECTIVES, METHOD AND SCOPE

1.1 BACKGROUND A dichotomy prevails in South Africa in that high unemployment coexists alongside

skills shortages. In essence South Africa is not producing sufficient professionals in

key economic fields to meet the demands of the economy. Compounding the

problem is the fact that there is an uneven production of professionals across race

groups and that the schooling system is unable to produce sufficient matriculants

with good quality pass rates to gain access to priority professions. In recognition of

the fact that the production of professionals is a medium- to long-term initiative that

is impacted on by the entire skills pipeline (schooling, higher education, professional

bodies and the workplace), a multi-stakeholder Technical Task Team (TTT) was

established to purposefully interrogate the problem faced and put forward a set of

recommendations to the HRDC for consideration.

One of the problems identified by the TTT on the production of professionals is the

fact that large numbers of students enrol in courses but either do not graduate at all

or do not graduate in the required time frame.

The South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) has developed a

successful bursary model aimed at ensuring that students from disadvantaged

backgrounds studying Accounting at university graduate within the required time

frame. This model was presented to Council at its meeting on 05 November 2010

and Council mandated the Technical Working Group (TWG) to explore ways of

expanding the SAICA model. Subsequently, agreement was reached that the HRD

Secretariat should seek to better understand the private sector’s contribution to

bursaries in the country. Thereafter the Secretariat should prepare a proposal for

Council outlining ways in which Council could lend its support to the awarding of

bursaries.

2

The TTT has further noted that besides the business contribution to bursaries and

placements in the country, there is a need to better understand the contribution that

both government and foreign donors are making to offers of bursaries and

scholarships and how these offers must align with the demands of the labour

market.

Against this background, the Human Resource Development Council of South Africa

(HRDC) commissioned Siyazithanda Projects and the Bureau of Market Research

(BMR) at the University of South Africa (Unisa) to conduct a national survey amongst

higher education institutions (HEIs), corporations (including foundations and NGOs)

embassies, national government (inclusive of departments, agencies and councils)

and provincial government (inclusive of provincial departments, local government

departments and municipalities) to explore the landscape of bursary funding in

South Africa.

It should be noted that participating respondents with a similar research interest

were ensured the likelihood of a summary of the consolidated empirical research

findings. Respondents were also ensured confidentiality to safeguard the entrusted

information provided by institutions and guaranteed exclusive use of the information

to achieve the outcomes of the project. This ethical duty of confidentiality also

included an obligation to protect information supplied by institutions from

unauthorised access, use, disclosure, modification, loss or theft.

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

A growing body of literature on international bursary funding could be retrieved. It

was found that not much traceable attention has been paid to financial allocation

aspects in South Africa, especially on qualifications, level of study and demographic

distribution of funds. Notwithstanding this limitation, it is clear from the secondary

analysis that South African students are in dire need of tertiary funding. The

literature review also explores possible reasons to enhance understanding of the

perceived linkage between the high number of South African students receiving

3

financial funding to further their tertiary studies and the increasing rate of

unemployment.

According to the Financial and Fiscal Review Committee (Financial and Fiscal

Commission 2012), South African public universities have fallen short of the

performance targets that were set for them. In the 1997 Education White Paper 3: a

Programme for Higher Education Transformation (Department of Education 1997),

Goal 1 was to increase the gross participation rate1 of students to 20% by 2010.

While the gross participation rate of students in Public hgher education institutions

increased from 14% in 2000, to 16% in 2005 and to 18% in 2010, the target of 20%

was not met. However, if those students in FET Colleges are added, the gross

participation rate of 20% was met in 2009.

With regard to Goal 3: increasing female participation rates in the system, gross

participation rates achieved gender equity. The participation rate of female students

increased from 16% in 2002 to 21% in 2010. The male participation rate was 16% in

2003 and 15% in 2010 (Financial and Fiscal Commission 2012:47). Gross

participation rates with regard to race have remained unequal, however. The

participation rate for White students has been close to 60%, whereas the

participation rate for African students (which increased from 11% over the period)

was less than 15% at the end of the period (Ibid:52).

Goal 4 is concerned with student enrolments in what are considered to be key fields

of study for economic development:

(a) Science and Technology, covering Agriculture and Food Technology, Architecture

and the Built Environment, Computer and Information Sciences, Engineering,

Health Sciences, Life and Physical Sciences, and Mathematical Sciences; and

1 Gross participation rate is calculated by dividing the total population in a five-year age band into the total number of students enrolled in the higher education system, regardless of their age. The age band usually selected for international comparative statistics is that of 20–24-year-olds; Statistics South Africa presents its population estimates in the age bands 15–19 years and 20–24 years.

4

(b) Business and Management, covering Accounting, Auditing, Banking, Public

Finance, Investments and Securities, Taxation, Insurance, Marketing, Human

Resource Management, and other management services.

The growth rates in Science and Technology enrolments did not meet Goal 4’s

targets. Throughout 2000-2010, the proportion of students enrolled for Science and

Technology majors averaged 28%, and therefore below 30%, while enrolments in

business and management met the target of 30%.

Goal 5 deals with the proportion of master’s and doctoral students enrolled in the

public university system. As modern knowledge economies require increasing

numbers of citizens with high-level qualifications, the target is for 15% of enrolments

to be master’s and doctoral students. Data available show that the average for the

period 2000-2010 was only 1% for doctoral students and less than 6% for master’s

students, which is way below the target (Ibid:48).

Goal 7 requires increased productivity – that the total of graduates produced must

grow – and improved efficiency of graduate outputs. A comparison of total growth

in graduates and the total growth in head count enrolments shows that the graduate

total increased from 88 000 in 2000 to 153 000 in 2010. The productivity aspects of

the goal appear to have been met, since graduate enrolments grew from 4.8% to

5.7% per annum.

In South Africa, the standard measures of graduate output efficiency are the ratios

between graduates and student enrolments in any given year, converted into cohort

output equivalents. They indicate how many students entering the public university

system can be expected to finally complete their qualifications and graduate. The

cohort output target is 65% for Goal 7, which signals that a drop-out (or

nongraduation) rate of 35% would be acceptable. The data show that the public

higher education system failed to meet this target during 2001-2010.

5

However, the graduation rate for undergraduate cohorts entering the system did

improve, from 45% for the first five-year period to 55% for the second. The

completion rate of cohorts of master’s and doctoral students remained below 50%

throughout the period, again an indication of a poorly performing system (Ibid:49).

In essence, the output performance of the system was poor throughout 2000-2010.

Student drop-out rates were high, resulting in less than 50% of any cohorts of

students who entered the system completing their programmes and graduating.

High-level outputs in the form of research publications and Doctoral graduates were

also well below the targets set (Ibid:52)

The performance of both universities and students within universities is obviously

greatly influenced by their total income. Table 2 below shows the total income of

public universities from 2000 to 2010 according to the Fiscal and Finance

Commission’s Budget Review of public universities (Ibid:53).

TABLE 1.1

TOTAL INCOME OF PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES (R BILLIONS)

Income source 2000 2005 2010

(R) billion

Government grants2 6.6 9.9 16.7

Student fees3 3.4 7.4 12.1

Private income4 3.6 6.6 12.1

TOTAL 13.6 24.0 40.9

Table 1.1 shows that the share of government grants in the total income of the

public university system fell from 49% in 2000, to 44% in 2005, and to 40% in 2010.

2 Block grants are funds generated by the formulas in the higher education frameworks. They can be spent at the discretion of the Council of each university as they are not earmarked for any specific purpose.

3 The student fees category includes all tuition and class fees, and accommodation or residence fees.

4 The private income category includes donations, investment income, and income from nongovernment contracts for research or the delivery of other services.

6

This drop in government funding was met by student fees and private funds. As a

proportion of total income, student fees rose from 25% in 2000, to 29% in 2005, and

to 30% in 2010, while private income increased from 26% in 2000, to 27% in 2005,

and to 30% in 20105 (Ibid:53).

Furthermore, the findings of the Fiscal and Finance Commission confirmed that the

income distribution in the public university system is seriously unequal. For

example, in 2010, the seven universities in Cluster 1 (all historically White) had 48%

of the total income of the public university system but only 30% of the total Full Time

Equivalent (FTE) student enrolment. In the same year, the nine institutions in Cluster

2 (three universities, two comprehensive universities and four universities of

technology that include some historically White and historically Black institutions)

had 32% of the system’s FTE student enrolment but only 30% of total income6 (Ibid:

53).

The Commission concludes by noting that, while the public university system as a

whole is not yet a well-performing system, many individual public universities

consistently perform at a high level of throughput and research productivity. It

shows that the South African public university system has become differentiated,

and the performances of universities relative to the White Paper 3 (Department of

Education 1997) and the National Plan (Department of Education 2001) goals differ

widely.

5 The financial data for the table was collected from: (a) the Department of Education’s annual publication Information on the State Budget of Higher Education, (b) the annual Ministerial Statements on Higher Education Funding, and (c) the summaries of the annual financial reports of public higher education institutions produced by the Department of Education/DHET. The data ends in 2010, which is the latest year for which full financial reports are available.

6 The planning categories are university, university of technology, and comprehensive university. A university is defined as an institution that offers general formative and professional academic programmes. Universities of technology are defined as institutions that offer primarily career-focused programmes. Before 2005, universities of technology were classified as technikons, and so the programmes they offer are described as technikon-type programmes. A comprehensive university is then defined as an institution which offers both university- and technikon-type programmes (Submission for the 2013/14 Division of Revenue, 54)

7

The Green Paper for Post School Education and Training has this to say about the

2003 funding framework: (i) Instruments within the 2003 funding framework are

inadequate as far as the promoting of inter-institutional equity is concerned. The

current funding mechanisms appear to entrench, and even accentuate inequalities,

between previously advantaged and previously disadvantaged institutions (DHET

2012:46-47).

South Africa’s diverse university system, which is steeped in inequality, is the

product of apartheid education policies, and that reality still confronts us today.

While our leading universities are internationally respected, our historically African

universities continue to face severe financial, human, infrastructure and other

resource constraints. Universities of technology are in some instances experiencing

mission drift, losing focus on their mission of producing technicians, technologists

and other mid-level skills at undergraduate level. This problem is also evident in the

comprehensive universities. In addition, many universities do not see student

support services as part of their core role (DHET 2012:11).

Many forms of discrimination remain part of the experience of students after they

have been accepted by universities, and this inhibits their academic progress. While

the enrolment patterns indicate that social exclusion on the basis of race and gender

is decreasing, class exclusion clearly still remains an issue, along with access to

students with disabilities or from rural areas.

The government’s biggest and most sustained response to the challenges facing the

funding of individual students (as opposed to institution), has been through the

National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS). This scheme was created in 1999

through an Act of Parliament. In its preamble, NSFAS aimed to redress past

discrimination, ensure representivity and equal access; respond to human resources

development needs; and establish an expanded national financial aid scheme that is

affordable and sustainable for academically deserving and financially needy students

(Financial and Fiscal Commission 2012:37).

8

NSFAS incorporated the Tertiary Education Fund of South Africa (TEFSA), a fund

scheme set up shortly after the transition to democracy. TEFSA had struggled to

meet the needs of students, leaving many universities to raise funds for needy

students. In 2002 NSFAS, 78% was funded by government; 18 % was funding from

international donors; 3% from tertiary institutions themselves; and 1% from private

sector (Ibid:37).

Between 1999 and 2008 the funds managed by NSFAS grew from R441 million to

R2.375 billion, providing financial aid to almost one-fifth of university students over

this period. By 2011 the funds made available through NSFAS had grown to R6

billion and were expected to continue growing. These funds are largely allocated

through the DHET, but include monies from other government sources, such as the

Department of Social Development and the Funza Lushaka Teacher Education

Bursary Scheme on behalf of the Department of Basic Education. Over the years,

NSFAS has been instrumental in providing access to education for almost a million

students from poor and working-class backgrounds who would otherwise not have

been able to go to university.

Despite large increases in funds, NSFAS provisioning has not kept up with the

increasing demand for higher education in South Africa. In 2009, the Minister of

Higher Education and Training appointed a committee to review the governance,

management and operations of NSFAS. The review committee was mandated to

examine the following: why the administrative capacity of the fund has not kept up

with the growth in size of the fund; necessary growth requirements of the fund to

increase access for poor students; and challenges relating to existing distribution and

allocation policies and mechanisms. The report was submitted and processed in

2010. Its recommendations included: expanding access to the fund; changing the

institutional allocation formula to one that is class-based and not race-based;

implementing an allocation formula that is student-centred rather than institution-

centred; and changing the composition of the institutional allocation to cover the full

cost of study. A comprehensive turnaround strategy was developed and is being

implemented.

9

NSFAS has recently been extended to students in FET colleges. Starting from 2011,

as part of government’s policy of progressively introducing free university education

to the poor, students in their final year of study who qualify for NSFAS assistance will

receive the full cost of study as a loan. If the student meets the requirements for

graduation in that year, then the loan will be converted to a bursary. The

assumption underlying this incentive is that a number of students could then focus

on completing their studies without worrying about the finances attached thereto,

thus increasing the success and throughput rates. It is envisaged that this

programme will steadily be introduced to cater for students in the pre-final years.

An important challenge that still remains is finding the resources to address those

students who do not qualify for NSFAS loans because their families’ incomes exceed

the threshold of R122 000 per annum but who do not earn enough to qualify for

commercial loans. This group includes the children of many teachers and civil

servants – precisely the groups from whose children future professionals and

academics come from in most countries. The government is working on finding ways

to meet this challenge (DHET 2012:49).

While NSFAS has played a remarkable role in assisting poor students to access HEIs,

thus diversifying the student population and mitigating against the cost of higher

education, inconsistencies still remain due to the independence given to institutions

to distribute their NSFAS grants at their own discretion. Because universities’

financial constraints and strategic priorities vary, the principles and mechanisms for

distributing NSFAS support vary significantly between universities, making for high

levels of complexity within the system. For example, University of Cape Town (UCT),

which has fewer poor students, can offer larger NSFAS grants than the University of

Zululand (UZ), which must distribute its grant across a very large number of poor

students. In addition UCT can top up the NSFAS grant with funds from its own

endowments, which a historically Black university (HBU), such as UZ, does not have.

Consequently, a poor student at UCT ends up with a much bigger grant than a poor

student at UZ. This means the system is skewed, because students with similar

needs attending different institutions may receive different amounts of financial

10

assistance. The current system therefore is not a cost-effective way of furthering the

political goal of fair access to the most academically demanding universities, and if it

widens participation in higher education, it does not sustain it, as many students

cannot top up their NSFAS grants, and therefore drop out. The present

arrangements are unfair and penalise those very universities that recruit the most

students from poor backgrounds.7

According to a recent analysis of students who apply for NSFAS awards (February

2013), it is evident that the extent to which NSFAS can contribute is limited. This is in

spite of the report of the Ministerial Review Committee of the National Student

Financial Aid Scheme (March 2010), which recommended increasing the pool of

funds available for student financial aid in 2011 and 2012 (Visser 2013:9).

The Ministerial Statement on University Funding: 2013/14 and 2014/15 provided for

a budget of R3 693 295 000 and R3 914 893 000 respectively, which represents an

increase of 9,3% in 2013/14 and a further increase of 6,3% in 2014/15. This is lower

than the 69,3% in 2011/12 and 27,7% in 2012/13, representing a significant decline

in the growth rate of MTEF budget allocations for the NSFAS. This implies that

although the budget for NSFAS allocations are increasing, the rate of growth is

slowing down and is considerably lower than the need experienced by students.

Alternative channels will therefore have to be investigated as a matter of priority in

order to provide financial support to these academically deserving students (Ibid:10).

Overall, the number of NSFAS applications increased from 131 362 in 2008 to 195

716 in 2011, representing a growth in NSFAS applications of 49,0% over the period

compared to a growth of 17,3% in enrolments between 2008 and 2011. The

proportion of NSFAS applications as percentage of total enrolments increased from

16,4% in 2008 to 20,9% in 2011. This indicates the growing need of students at a

national level for financial support.

7 This predicament is not unique to NSFAS, as similar observations were made by Chester, J. and Bekhradnia, B. (2008) in their analysis in Financial support in English universities: the case of a National Bursary Scheme.

11

The largest component of applicants was from occasional students8 and students

registered for undergraduate qualifications. This category increased from 128 207

(97,6% of NSFAS applicants) in 2008 to 189 672 (96,9% of NSFAS applicants) in 2011,

indicating a relatively stable but slightly decreasing proportion of the total. A larger

proportional increase was evident for both postgraduate groups but the

postgraduate qualifications below master’s degrees showed the largest proportional

increase from 2,9% in 2008 to 4,8% in 2011 (Ibid:4).

When analysing the degree credit course success rate of all students who received

NSFAS awards from 2008 to 2011, Visser (2013) makes the following observations:

The success rate for occasional students and students enrolled for undergraduate

qualifications increased from 50,3% in 2008 to 66,3% in 2011. The degree credit

course success rate for all NSFAS students enrolled for postgraduate qualifications

below master’s degrees increased from 33.0% in 2008 to 51.0% in 2011. Overall, for

these two levels of degrees, the degree credit course success rate has increased from

54.9% to 66.2% (Ibid:10).

While NSFAS awards have undoubtedly assisted academically deserving but

financially needy students to access higher education, there are still large numbers of

students who have to fund their studies using other means. These alternatives

include bursaries9, scholarships10 and study loans11.

8 Occasional students are those not enrolled for a specific qualification.

9 A bursary is a form of financial assistance given to a student for further study or training. Bursaries may differ in terms of amount of money and duration. Students are selected according to various criteria set by donors, which could include academic merit, financial need, religious orientation, race, gender, geographic location or course of study. Some bursaries require that students sign a contract to enter the employment of the donor after graduation.

10 The scholarship amount is normally based on outstanding academic achievement. Scholarships do not normally require the recipient to repay the scholarship and usually have no employment conditions attached.

11 A loan is money borrowed, which must be repaid upon completion of studies. Loans are available from banks and institutions like Eduloan. Students may also apply for the NSFAS award. Up to 40% of this type of loan can be converted into a bursary, depending on the end-of-year results.

12

However, the number of students who hold bursaries and scholarships (as defined

below) is actually much smaller than commonly assumed. This fact was vividly

demonstrated by Letseka, Breier and Visser (2010) in their investigation of the

correlation between poverty, race, and student achievement in seven South African

higher education institutions12 in 2002.

TABLE 1.2

SOURCE OF INCOME FOR FEES, ALL SEVEN INSTITUTIONS, BY RACE

Source of income for fees African Coloured Indian White Total

participants

NSFAS Parents/guardians Bank loan Bursary Scholarship Other Total

898 1 385

62 173

48 655

3 221

55 103

11 44

2 53

268

1 39

1 5 2 5

53

7 124

31 14

3 39

218

961 1 651

105 236

55 752

3 760

(Source: Letseka, Breier and Visser (2010:36)

It is alarming, given the high proportions of Africans and Coloureds in the low Social

Economic Status (SES) groups, that these students had to rely so much on their

parents for support. Forty-three per cent of African responses indicated support by

parents or guardians, while only 28% reported support by NSFAS. Likewise, for

Coloureds, 38% were supported by parents and guardians and 20.5% by NSFAS. The

corresponding statistics for Indians were 74% funded by parents and guardians and

2% by NSFAS. For Whites, 57% were funded by parents and guardians and 3% by

NSFAS.

There was a similar trend in response to the question: ‘Who paid for your living

expenses while you were studying in 2002?’ A total of 55% indicated parental

support. Among Africans the percentage was 55%; Coloureds 51.5%; among Indians

81%; and among Whites 57%. Overall, one in every four respondents (25%)

indicated that they supplemented their income by working (odd jobs, part-time, or

full-time jobs); 33% Coloureds, 32% Whites, 24% Africans; and 19% Indians (Ibid:36).

12 The seven institutions were the following: the Universities of Fort Hare, the North, Stellenbosch, and the Western Cape, Wits, as well as Peninsula Technikon and Pretoria Technikon.

13

It is clear from the table below that very few students actually had bursaries and

scholarships.

TABLE 1.3

STUDENTS WITH BURSARIES, SCHOLARSHIPS, AND NSFAS FUNDING IN SEVEN INSTITUTIONS IN 2002 (%)

Source of income for fees African Coloured Indian White Total

participants

Bursaries and scholarships 6.8 17 13.2 7.8 7.7

Bursaries, scholarships, and NSFAS 34.7 37.7 15 11 33.3

Only 6.8% of Africans had bursaries and scholarships. The NSFAS awards increases

this figure to 34.7% (1119/3221 African students). For Coloureds the figure was 17%

with bursaries and scholarships, and the NSFAS awards increased this figure to 37.7%

(101/268 Coloured students). For Indians, the figure was 13.2% with bursaries and

scholarships; and 15% (8/53 Indian students) including NSFAS awards. For Whites,

only 7.8% had bursaries and scholarships, increasing to 11% (24/218 White students)

if NSFAS awards are included. Therefore, in total, from the responses only 7.7%

(291/3760 students) had bursaries and scholarships, ie less than 10% of the

participants. This figure increased to 33.3% (1252/3760 students) when NSFAS

awards were included, bearing in mind that a large portion of an NSFAS award is a

loan.

While the Bursary Register and university annual reports show that there is funding

available from private companies, it is clear that these private funds focus mostly on

high achieving students, that is, those whose academic performance is above

average. Even where financial need is an important factor, high academic scores in

Grade 12 are still the primary consideration. Since the number of high achieving

students from poor backgrounds is limited, a disproportionately large number of

corporate bursary funders and institutions are competing for a relatively small

number of high achieving students from lower socioeconomic groups. Consequently,

students who demonstrate both high academic achievement and financial

14

disadvantage end up qualifying for most of the private bursaries on offer and get

accepted to the most prestigious universities, that is, the historically White

universities (HWU). The majority of students, especially African students, end up

being partially funded by the government’s NSFAS programme, or dropping out.

The literature review revealed that evidence abounds that there is a direct

correlation between financial assistance and tertiary completion rate. This was

starkly recorded in the 2010 NSFAS Review, in which the primary cause of the 48%

dropout rate is the students’ inability to come up with the rest of the money needed

for accommodation, food, transport, and books. The Rural Education Access

Programme’s (REAP) (2011) 10-year Tracking Report offers more empirical evidence

of the correlation between financial assistance and completion (REAP 2011).13 The

findings were that in addition to adding value by supplementing the NSFAS bursary

(and thus providing money for accommodation, transport, and food), the positive

impact was demonstrated in the following indicators: improved completion rates;

the development of a good work ethic; the ambition to succeed; a desire to

contribute to society; access to employment; social support network from peers, and

a better understanding of mentoring.

More proof that the availability of funds is the most prominent factor in enabling

students to complete their studies is also provided by Colborn, Kent and Leon’s

(1995) study on the changing medical student population at the University of Cape

Town. Realising that many students, in particular African students, often face the

problem of financial disadvantage, the institution started offering substantial full-

cost and near full-cost bursaries to African medical students on the Academic

Support Programme. These funds were provided by foreign governments and

international businesses. As a result of this financial aid, the number of applicants

rose from 1 229 in 1981 (the first year in which UCT accepted African students to its

Medical School) to 2 330 in 1994. By 1994 African students comprised 24% of those

13 REAP is an associate body of the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC), but assists all young, rural people regardless of faith or affiliation. Through a partnership with the National Skills Fund, REAP is able to facilitate full cost bursaries to all its students as well as offer psychosocial support and mentoring services to students.

15

admitted to the MBChB programme, and of these 30.4% were women. The authors

concluded that students who were unable to get this form of financial support

incurred substantial debts during their medical student career, a factor that put

added stress on them and negatively influenced their academic performance and

their career choice upon graduation (Colborn, Kent & Leon 1995:260).

Further afield, in the United Kingdom, research evidence was examined regarding

how costs, debt, and vacation work affect the participation of students from lower

socioeconomic backgrounds, within the context of higher education reforms. Even

there, financial issues were shown to constrain choice of institution and place of

study for lower-income students, and financial problems were commonly cited as

reasons for dropping out of higher education.14

In the light of these findings, it is therefore not surprising that large numbers of

tertiary students do not succeed in their studies or perform poorly in their exams.

Students in poor families study under difficult conditions, eg candles, crowded

accommodation, lack of food, etc. In fact, South Africa’s graduation rate of 15% is

one of the lowest in the world. According to the Department of Education, 30% drop

out in the first year (Letsaka & Maile 2008). It is therefore self-evident that the

bursaries that government and the private sector provide, offer needed assistance in

this regard.

With regard to postgraduate funding in particular, growing recognition that

knowledge and innovation are critical contributors to national wealth and welfare,

funding these levels has assumed greater significance within the broader national

strategy to accelerate human capital development. This significance is reflected not

only in the national funding framework for higher education, but also in several of

the new programmes launched by funding agencies and science councils. In the

current funding framework doctoral graduates are weighted such that this indicator

14 See also Jerry Schwab’s Evaluation of the Towards a Just Society Fund Bursary Program, conducted by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research in Australia, 2010.

16

has a considerable impact on an institution's research output subsidy (Council on

Higher Education 2009:v).

The National Research Foundation Act 23 of 1998 enabled the government to

establish the NRF as the key agency for promoting research through funding,

innovation and development. The National Research Foundation (NRF) launched its

PhD Project in 2007 with the specific intention of increasing the number of doctoral

graduates produced annually by the South African higher education system. Higher

education institutions have been receptive, with each institution making a concerted

effort to increase doctoral enrolments through a range of means such as fee waivers,

offers of research fellowships and competitive scholarships. The Higher Education

Monitor No7: Postgraduate studies in South Africa (Council on Higher Education

2009), a statistical profile commissioned by the CHE in 2006, provides a clear

quantitative account of postgraduate studies in South African higher education

institutions for the five-year period up to 2005.

Its results reaffirm the pressing need to prioritise the support and funding of greater

numbers of postgraduate students and to ensure that there is a clear, easily-

accessible and sought-after transition from undergraduate to postgraduate studies

at our higher education institutions (Ibid:ix).

Regarding age, there was little difference in the age of students for master's first-

enrolments in the under-30s between 2000 and 2005 (with 41% and 45%,

respectively). However, doctoral first-enrolments under 30 decreased, comprising

28% and 21% respectively in 2000 and 2005. One of the most striking and disturbing

findings concerns the changing mean age of postgraduate students (at graduation) in

South Africa over the past few years. The mean age of honours students increased

significantly from 27 to 30 by 2005, and most master's students now graduate at age

34, and most doctoral students at age 40. There were no significant gender or race

differences in these data.

17

These findings are disturbing for two reasons: firstly, it means that many master's

and doctoral students typically interrupt their studies after having completed their

bachelor’s and honours degree to enter the job market, only taking up their master's

studies later on. This interruption, probably due to the lack of financial resources,

invariably impacts on their preparedness for advanced studies and might mean they

take longer to graduate. Secondly, and more importantly, it also means that

doctoral students who make a career of academic scholarship or science would

probably only become productive quite late in their careers. There is a well-

established correlation between holding a doctoral degree and publication

productivity. Against a background of an ageing academic and scientific cohort, it is

imperative that South African doctoral graduates start publishing as early on in their

careers as possible (Ibid:ix).

With regard to postgraduate funding in particular, the 2010/11 NRF Grant Register

(2011) reflected the following figures:

Free-standing bursaries (postgraduate scholarships and fellowships for

study/research in SA and abroad) were provided to students to the value of

R172 598 587. Grantholder-linked bursaries (postgraduate bursaries and fellowships

for study/research in South Africa) were provided to students to the value of R

127 609 759. The total funding for bursaries, scholarships, and fellowships was

R255 208 346.

Honours bursaries (block grants to institutions) amounted to R 35 700 700, extension

of master’s and doctoral scholarships to R12 177 000 (to institutions for publications,

conference presentations, research visits, etc), and additional funding for human

capital development to R13 400 000 (improving academic qualifications of university

staff).

In summary, in 2010/11, through R205,4m additional funding from the Department

of Science and Technology (DST), which is the largest contributor to the NRF, the

organisation was able to support 1 723 BTech/honours students; 3 564 master’s

18

students and 1 979 PhDs during 2011/12. The NRF has developed a system of

tracking the throughput of NRF-funded students. This system can provide data from

2007 and shows an increase in outputs over the years 2007 to 2011. During the

2010/11 financial year, NRF-funded students that graduated included: 355 doctoral;

803 master’s and 1 231 honours students. Staff of the National Facilities supervised

263 postgraduate students during the reporting period. The NRF recognises the

importance of established researchers in creating knowledge and mentoring

students, and disbursed R1,2 billion (86%) of the total RISA expenditure on

competitive grants to researchers and students. The NRF supported 2 890

researchers (excluding postgraduate students) of which 754 (26%) were African and

957 (33%) were women. These data demonstrate the urgency with which the

transformation of the science workforce needs to be addressed (NRF 2012:7).

1.3 RESEARCH AIM AND SCOPE The overall aim of the study is to investigate the status of the bursary landscape in

South Africa from the perspective of the following stakeholder groups:

HEI (public universities and universities of technology);

Corporations (inclusive of private organisations, foundations, NGOs and state-

owned companies (SOC));

International funders (from embassies’ and other international funders’

perspective);

National government (inclusive of departments, agencies and councils); and

Provincial government (inclusive of departments, local government

departments and municipalities).

More specifically the study aims to establish the following:

To determine what corporate, local and international donors and other funding

partners offer in terms of bursaries and scholarships. In other words, to clarify

who is offering what, to whom, why (the purpose), the duration,

19

responsibilities and obligations, structure, areas/sectors, management and

institutional arrangements, tracking of bursaries/scholarships and costs.

To identify key blockages relating to the management of these offers.

To explore the feasibility of either funding the development and management

of a website or enter into an agreement with an organisation to host

information on offers of bursaries/scholarships.

To set forth recommendations regarding best practice and critical success

factors to ensure student success.

In addition, the study aims to focus on the aforementioned objectives for the

following priority professions presented in exhibit 1.2 without limiting the findings to

any other fields of study:

EXHIBIT 1.1

PRIORITY PROFESSION AREAS - SCARCE SKILLS FIELDS OF STUDY

Priority profession field of study Profession

Engineering and the Built

Environment

Engineers

Technicians

Technologists

Health

Doctors

Nurses

Pharmacists

Education Teachers

Social sector Social Workers

Agriculture Veterinary Science

Bioresource Engineering

Finance Chartered Accountants

Accounting Technicians

20

1.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY

Chapter 1 presented the background and objectives to the research study

commissioned by the HRDC, of which the research objectives were reiterated by a

literature review on the topic of bursary funding challenges facing South Africa.

Chapter 2 focuses on the research methodology employed, followed by chapter 3

that presents the empirical research findings and chapter 4, which provides

conclusions and recommendations from a research point of view.

21

CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 presented the background and literature overview on bursary funding to

tertiary students in South Africa. Building on the theoretical foundations, this

chapter conceptualises the data collection methodology pursued. The sampling plan

design is described, as well as the research instrument.

2.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The overall research design involved both an exploratory and a descriptive phase. In

order to attain the research objectives outlined in section 1.2, the study typically

followed a chronological research methodology that is explained in more detail in

the sections to follow.

2.2.1 Exploratory research A literature review was conducted on the bursary landscape of South Africa in order

to ascertain international best practices and also to determine whether other South

African research on this topic has been conducted. The exploratory research also

aimed to gain a better understanding of, amongst others, HEIs, corporates,

government departments, international funders, specifically with regard to these

stakeholder groups’ public information, available annual and financial reports as well

as other published documents on bursary funding.

2.2.2 Descriptive research

The descriptive research applied during the primary research phase of the study on

the bursary landscape of South Africa is described below.

22

2.2.2.1 Sample frame In order to address the research objective and enhance understanding of the

bursary landscape of South Africa, it was deemed necessary to establish contact

with a key informant who is intrinsically knowledgeable about the funding

allocation and operational aspects for each prospective respondent within each

stakeholder group. No readily available database existed, therefore the research

teams embarked on an explorative approach to source contact information.

Siyazithanda Projects and the BMR collectively endeavoured to compile contact

lists for each stakeholder group, with Siyazithanda Projects’ focusing on corporate

and state-owned companies (SOC) and the BMR focusing on HEIs, national

government and provincial government. Both research teams established contacts

with bursary website hosts.

The approach was based primarily on stakeholders’ website information and by

validating as many as possible key informants’ telephone numbers and e-mail

addresses telephonically. As such, it was often necessary to make a number of

telephone calls before being able to confirm a key informant. This approach thus

resulted in a snowball sampling method that was applied to source and validate key

informants to be surveyed and interviewed.

Snowball sampling is a form of nonprobability sampling. In this approach the

starting point is to identify respondents who meet the criteria for inclusion in the

study. In this case, contact was often established initially with a contact person’s

name presented on the organisation’s website. The initial contact was in most

cases not the key informant, and these respondents were then asked to

recommend others who they may know who meet the criteria. Through a process

of elimination the key informant was then identified and invited to participate in

the research. Snowball sampling is especially useful when attempting to reach

populations that are inaccessible, which proved to be lucrative for purposes of this

study.

23

For the online survey, a census was conducted by inviting all validated key

informants to participate. For the interviews, a sample for each stakeholder group

was drawn and invited.

2.2.2.2 Sample size

Sample sizes by stakeholder group for the quantitative (online survey) and

qualitative (in-depth interviews) research phases are presented in tables 2.1 and

2.2 respectively.

TABLE 2.1

QUANTITATIVE SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY STAKEHOLDER GROUP

Stakeholder group Census

(N) Proposed sample (n)

Invited Realised sample

(n)

Response rate