Outline of presentation

1. SATN performance indicators: Response of NMMU as a comprehensive university & link to SANTED project Prof H Nel 20 August 2008

2. Outline of presentation • Context of comprehensive universities • NMMU Comments on SATN PI project • NMMU Comments on SATN philosophy of UoT differentiation • Appropriateness of SATN PIs for NMMU • SANTED project: Overview • Areas for closer collaboration between SATN and CUs

3. Context of comprehensive universities • In the case of comprehensive universities, we have to determine which of the PIs proposed by SATN are applicable to our particular context and mission. • Different states of evolution post-merger in terms of strategic positioning – a lot of diversity among CUs. • Common identity and development trajectory for CUsprobably not easily achievable. Some have stronger “technology focus” than others. Balance between diploma and degree programmes differs depending on enrolment targets. • Different “streams” within CUs currently (i.e. UoT component and traditional university component), but it will probably not remain this way. Over time, will there even be a “UoT component” of a CU? Managed as one unitary institution at NMMU. • Need for integrative approach– premature for NMMU to comment on specific PIs since strategic plan is currently unfolding. Our PIs will be aligned with our strategic goals and will be designed holistically for the whole institution and not for separate parts.

4. NMMU Comments on SATN PI project • Clarity regarding purpose of PIs : Differentiation? Funding framework? Quality assurance? • Institutional self-regulation versus central steering? Nuanced approach to DoE performance management and funding of HE institutions (e.g. Finnish model). • PIs for UoT differentiation – PQM and enrolment targets (e.g. diploma versus degree balance); widening access to HE (including FET linkages); employer/industry links; applied, problem-oriented research and technology transfer; regional impact and embededness, etc. • Need to ‘sell’ diploma qualifications as having value in their own right – i.e. not as a last resort for students who do not qualify for degrees • Caution about referring to ‘type of students’ attracted to UoTs – could reinforce stereotypes that diplomas are intended for ‘second class’ students

5. SATN philosophy regarding UoT differentiation

6. Appropriateness of SATN PIs for NMMU: Fit with Vision 2020 and SANTED? Which characteristics, attributes and PIs would we like to associate with the NMMU? Many PI are useful but not across the board. How will we take this forward? Fit with Vision 2020 and SANTED? Align PI development with strategic plan.

7. SANTED project: Overview • Collaborative project between NMMU & UJ funded by NORAD • Objective: • Design an appropriate qualifications structure and academic programme profile for a CU • Three overarching task teams: • HE institutional typologies • Curriculumdesign • Access, retention& success • Case studies: • Fields where programmes are offered on both sides of the “binary divide” within NMMU & UJ (e.g. Chemistry; Human Resource Management; Architecture; etc) • Curriculum review to assess areas of overlap/duplication and assess how articulation pathways can be developed between diploma and degree programmes • Major challenges: • Horizontal progression from diploma into degree and vice versa – different admission requirements, curriculum traditions & knowledge types • Seamless vertical progression from diploma into postgraduate studies – articulation from diploma into Honours/Master’s degrees

8. Areas for closer collaboration between SATN and comprehensive universities • HE differentiation and diversity • Broader sectoral approach and validation of SATN PIs within SA higher education sector (role of HESA?) – danger of a ‘sealed’ sub-sectoral approach to PI development • Are we really that unique and distinct? How do we know this? • International benchmarking and collaboration – institutional typologies and HE classification systems to promote diversity and differentiation • Curriculum review, design and implementation of HEQF • Challenges: articulation from diploma into degree; vertical progression from diploma to p/g studies; work-integrated and experiential learning; capacity for large-scale recurriculation; etc. • Need for more coordination in interaction with national regulatory bodies (e.g. DoE/MoE, HEQC, HESA) • Access, retention and success • Admission requirements and impact of NSC • HE and FET interface – best pursued by UoTs and CUs since articulation from FET sector can best take place into certificates and diplomas • Strategies to enhance retention and success

9. Van Vught European HE typology model • Four groups of classification schemes: • Schemes on education: types of qualifications offered (highest level of degree offered & number of qualifications offered in each type of degree); range of subjects offered; orientation of degrees (academic or professional); European educational profile • Schemes on R&I: research intensiveness; innovation intensiveness research; European research profile • Schemes on student and staff profile: international profile; involvement in lifelong learning • Institutional schemes: size (staff and students); mode of delivery; community services (not-for-profit activities); public-private character (funding base/”third stream income”); legal status (public or private)

10. Cautionary notes about HE typologies • Purpose: Effort to organise complex diversity within a more coherent framework as a condition for comparability of degrees and competitiveness of HE sector • Facilitate and encourage programme diversity • Avoid mission convergence and institutional isomorphism • Typology must be multi-dimensional and allow for flexibility where individual HEIs can more effectively design their own missions and profiles • Ownership of the typology must rest with the HEIs enabling them to express and develop their strategic goals and missions • Risk: Temptation to use typologies to vertically stratify or rank HEIs in a system – avoid hierarchical classifications that are linked to political and funding decisions • Basis for diversified policy approaches at national level – no “one type fits all” approach

11. Thank you