1. Report on the Comprehensive Nature of Unisa Presented to STLSC 24 August 2009 Prof George Subotzky Executive Director: Information & Strategic Analysis

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 1 st View of Comprehensiveness: by Qualification Level against 2010 Ministerial Targets

6. HEMIS 2008 vs 2010 Target, Unisa & Colleges

7. Unisa, 2004-9 vs 2010 Target

8. CAES, 2004-9 vs 2010 Target

9. CEMS, 2004-9 vs 2010 Target

10. CHS, 2004-9 vs 2010 Target

11. CLAW, 2004-9 vs 2010 Target

12. CSET, 2004-9 vs 2010 Target

13. 2 nd View of Comprehensiveness: by University-type & Technikon-type Qualifications

14. Unisa & Colleges by UG & PG University- and Technikon-type Qualifications

15. Unisa by UG & PG University- and Technikon-type Qualifications, 2004-9

16. CAES 20082009 UG/PGQualification TypeN%N% UG TechnikonNational Diploma 2 63558,46% 2 43256,09% B Tech 49510,98% 4309,92% UG Technikon Total 3 13069,45% 2 86266,01% UG UniversityProf 1st B degree(3yr) 2006+ 46710,36% 49011,30% Professional First B Degree 2605,77% 2415,56% UG University Total 72716,13% 73116,86% PG TechnikonM Tech 50,11% 20,05% PG UniversityHonours Degree 56312,49% 61714,23% Masters Degree 671,49% 781,80% Doctoral Degree 150,33% 461,06% PG University Total 64514,31% 74117,09% Grand Total 4 507100,00% 4 336100,00%

17. CEMS 20082009 UG/PGQualification TypeN%N% UG TechnikonNational Diploma 34 94224,92% 29 62222,54% B Tech 6 3964,56% 5 8214,43% National Higher Certificate 4 7313,37% 4 1663,17% UG Technikon Total 46 06932,85% 39 60930,14% UG UniversityProf 1st B degree(3yr) 2006+ 25 38218,10% 24 86218,92% Professional First B Degree 5620,40% 3620,28% General First B Degree 54 22938,67% 52 49139,94% UG University Total 80 17357,18% 77 71559,13% PG TechnikonM Tech 2730,19% 3000,23% PG UniversityHonours Degree 9 0656,46% 8 7096,63% Masters Degree 2 0661,47% 2 3271,77% Doctoral Degree 1930,14% 1890,14% Postgraduate Dip & Cert 2 3811,70% 2 5831,97% PG University Total 13 7059,77% 13 80810,51% Grand Total 140 220100,00% 131 432100,00%

18. CHS 20082009 UG/PGQualification TypeN%N% UG TechnikonNational Diploma 2 2342,96% 2 0712,43% B Tech 1850,25% 520,06% National Higher Certificate 90,01% 20,00% National Certificate 1450,19% 1650,19% UG Technikon Total 2 5733,41% 2 2902,68% UG UniversityProf 1st B degree(3yr) 2006+ 16 21621,49% 16 57019,42% Professional First B Degree 14 46419,17% 19 14022,43% General First B Degree 6 8619,09% 6 4497,56% UnderGrad Dip/Cert: 1/2 yrs 15 97521,17% 19 39422,73% Undergraduate Dip & Cert 4 8266,39% 5 5976,56% UG University Total 58 34277,31% 67 15078,71% PG TechnikonM Tech 80,01% 9 PG UniversityHonours Degree 8 56911,35% 9 47411,10% Masters Degree 1 6972,25% 1 6071,88% Doctoral Degree 6760,90% 6900,81% Postgraduate Dip & Cert 3 6014,77% 4 0944,80% PG University Total 14 54319,27% 15 86518,60% Grand Total 75 466100,00% 85 314100,00%

19. CLAW 20082009 UG/PGQualification TypeN%N% UG TechnikonNational Diploma 8 79431,95% 8 23330,11% B Tech 1 4845,39% 1 4055,14% UG Technikon Total 10 27837,34% 9 63835,25% UG UniversityProf 1st B degree(3yr) 2006+ 7082,57% 4191,53% Professional First B Degree 14 44652,49% 15 01954,93% General First B Degree 5381,95% 6372,33% UG University Total 15 69257,01% 16 07558,80% PG TechnikonM Tech 1850,67% 1790,65% PG UniversityHonours Degree 1020,37% 940,34% Masters Degree 1 1364,13% 1 2154,44% Doctoral Degree 1300,47% 1390,51% PG University Total 1 3684,97% 1 4485,30% Grand Total 27 523100,00% 27 340100,00%

20. CSET 20082009 UG/PGQualification TypeN%N% UG TechnikonNational Diploma 9 46749,94% 9 11149,19% B Tech 1 7069,00% 1 6498,90% National Certificate 1400,74% 1000,54% UG Technikon Total 11 31359,68% 10 86058,63% UG UniversityGeneral First B Degree 6 84836,12% 6 88137,15% UG Dip/Cert: 1/2 yrs 2231,18% 1240,67% UG University Total 7 07137,30% 7 00537,82% PG TechnikonM Tech 50,03% 130,07% PG UniversityHonours Degree 4582,42% 4992,69% Masters Degree 710,37% 810,44% Doctoral Degree 390,21% 650,35% PG University Total 5683,00% 6453,48% Grand Total 18 957100,00% 18 523100,00%

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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