2.3 Overview: Higher Education in South Africa
2.3.2 South African Higher Education Numbers
To continue with the thought of higher education in South Africa being a ‘landscape’ that is by extension ‘an area,’ it is instructive to treat it, for now, as a space/place in the geographic sense.
In the study of Geography it is often crucial to look at the numbers for inhabitants within the geographic space under study. Looking out for such numbers often tells of the size of the space, and when the numbers are engaged further, demographics and the profile of who lives within the space/place. For this subsection I will be looking at the higher education population numbers. It is in these numbers that I will be illustrating the size of the landscape and the profile of who inhabits it.
Furthermore, illustrating the numbers and profile of higher education will display the historic development of the landscape. This will in turn provide what is often thought of as a part of the aims of transformation within the landscape. In other words, the numbers are often argued to be connected to transforming the landscape - in the case that transforming is thought of
23 | P a g e reflectively and in line with how far along the country is in rectifying the exclusionary policies of the past as they related to higher education. I am to look at the numbers as related to gender and race as these compose the overall higher education landscape.
Table 1: South African Enrolment Numbers by Gender (2000 – 2005)
Gender/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Female 289 555 321 653 344 979 366 465 403 832 401 019
Male 265 525 283 014 298 257 317 944 340 657 333 906
Total 555 080 604 667 643 236 684 409 744 489 734 925 Data Source: Report of the Ministerial Committee on Transformation and Social Cohesion and the Elimination of Discrimination in Public Higher Education Institutions, 2008.
Table 2: South African Enrolment Numbers by Gender (2010 – 2015)
Gender/Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Female 512 573 542 997 554 840 573 694 564 784 574 677
Male 380 350 395 117 398 367 409 988 404 365 410 523
Total 892 936 938 201 953 373 983 698 969 154 985 212 Data Source: Higher Education Management Information System of the South Africa Department of Higher Education and Training.
For the above two tables displaying enrolment numbers by gender for the periods 2000 to 2005 and 2010 to 2015 it is clear to note that South African higher education enrolment numbers have been increasing. Furthermore, it is clear to note that females have constituted the student body in greater numbers than their male counterparts. Female numbers increased at a rate faster than male numbers during this same time period -- females moving from 289 555 in the year 2000 to 512 573 in 2010 as compared to males moving from 265 525 to just 380 350 for the same period. Additional to such relationships between the two genders in enrolment, it is also noticeable that when there is a decrease in numbers for enrolment overall both the genders decrease in their contribution to the number.
These numbers can be argued to fall positively into the quantitative realm of transformation.
In other words, in the Education White Paper 3 there was the vision of the increasing inclusion
24 | P a g e of females within the higher education landscape (refer to Department of Education, 2001;
Council on Higher Education, 2004; Barnes, 2007). Female enrolment numbers were historically lower than male enrolments. When transformation is thought of as a shift in composition numbers then the gender numbers have shown a shift in terms of who constitutes the greater contributor to the higher education numbers in terms of gender enrolment.
Another set of figures which show historical shifts and need to be looked at when looking at South African higher education and its focus on transformation (quantitative transformation in this case) are the figures for the racial composition of the student body. Such figures are used to look at the profile of quantitative transformation as it relates to the race of the student body within the academy since people have also been historically excluded from (some parts of) the higher education landscape based on their race.
Table 3: South African Enrolment Numbers by Race (2000 – 2005)
Race/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
African 317 998 353 327 377 072 403 235 453 621 446 945
Coloured 30 108 32 900 37 906 42 390 46 091 46 302
Indian 39 558 43 436 47 567 51 611 54 326 54 611
White 163 004 173 397 178 871 184 964 188 714 185 847 Total 555 080 604 667 643 236 684 409 744 489 734 925 Data Source: Report of the Ministerial Committee on Transformation and Social Cohesion and the Elimination of Discrimination in Public Higher Education Institutions, 2008.
Table 4: South African Enrolment Numbers by Race (2010 – 2015)
Race/Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
African 595 783 640 443 662 066 689 503 679 800 696 320
Coloured 58 176 59 312 58 671 61 034 60 716 68 186
Indian 54 492 54 698 52 284 53 787 53 611 53 378
White 178 190 177 365 172 611 171 927 166 172 161 739 Total 892 936 938 201 953 373 983 698 959 154 985 212 Data Source: Higher Education Management Information System of the South Africa Department of Higher Education and Training.
25 | P a g e From the above two tables on the racial composition of the South African higher education landscape for the periods 2000 to 2005 and 2010 to 2015, it is clear that the landscape is now composed largely of African students. The number of African students has generally been increasing along with the total numbers of enrolment. These numbers for African students have also been increasing at a rate higher than the other racial groups. It is also important to note that at the same time that the African numbers have been increasing, the number of White students declined over time -- a trend it is following alone as the other groups’ numbers increase and decrease in line with total enrolments whereas the White numbers have been progressively decreasing even when total enrolments have been increasing.
The racial composition numbers are contentious when it comes to their contribution to the transformation debate (refer to Jansen, 2002; Prinsloo, 2009; Badat, 2014). To illustrate the precarious stance of the numbers, the numbers can be argued to be a step in the direction both of inclusion and exclusion along race lines. For instance, the numbers show growing African student numbers while at the same time showing decreasing White student numbers. Whereas the increasing African student numbers can be argued to further transform the profile, the decreasing White student numbers mean that White students are now decreasing in their contribution to the composition of the higher education landscape.
Owing to the nature and shortfalls of only looking at quantities when considering transformation, those probing the higher education landscape have also looked to engage the numbers in a qualitative sense that will give a better feel of the sentiments within the landscape (refer Cele and Menon, 2006; Akoojee and Nkomo, 2008; Bere, 2013). In other words, researchers within the higher education landscape have looked to engage in qualitative research so as to get a deeper look at what the change in quantities might mean for the experience of the landscape. In such an undertaking, researchers have often looked to engage those realities within the higher education landscape that they consider most pressing in terms of overall challenges within the country’s higher education.
With this purpose in mind, a momentous document entitled the “Report of the Ministerial Committee on Transformation and Social Cohesion and the Elimination of Discrimination in
26 | P a g e Public Higher Education Institutions” was produced. Colloquially referred to as the Soudien Report of 2008, after its chair Professor Crain Soudien, this report looked more qualitatively at the experience of the higher education landscape by those who were historically within its corridors and by those who in many cases had been historically excluded from the institutions.
In other words, the report was a look at the interactions between historic culture and new entries into this culture. The report was a look at the sentiments within the country’s institutions by those versed in the vision and need for transformation within the higher education landscape.
The Soudien Report looked at a plethora of issues within the South African higher education landscape. There was a look into how institutions had manoeuvred so as to be more in line with the visions of the Department of Education in transforming the landscape (Soudien, 2008:10).
There were varying degrees of success throughout the institutions and the need for improvement was noted. There was also a look at individuals’ (mostly historically excluded individuals) experience of institutions that were policy-bound to be transformative and in line with new realities that the academy found itself operating in. Ultimately, here too was a need for improvement so as to lead to an experience in line with the government’s aims for the higher education landscape experience (refer to Soudien, 2008:14).
What the Soudien Report acknowledged was that the South African higher education landscape was a place wherein transformation was to change not only the compositional profile of the space but also in many cases to be an event which would probably consequentially shift the scope of the experience of the space. In other words, the higher education landscape was an experience beyond simply its numbers. The experience of higher education was its numbers and what these numbers do as a collection of many subjectivities (Jansen, 2002:11; Soudien, 2008). In other words, the numbers were living a life in the lifeworlds within higher education.
In living this life, the numbers were invigorating and animating the different parts of the South African higher education landscape’s placeness. Ultimately, what the Soudien Report illustrated was the qualitative profile of there being general challenges within the South African higher education landscape. I now briefly discuss the general challenges often posted out to be the qualitative profile of South African higher education.
27 | P a g e 2.3.3 General Challenges within post-Apartheid South African Higher Education
The general challenges to be found within post-Apartheid South African higher education are inextricably linked with the way the country was during Apartheid (refer to Department of Education, 1997, 2001; Soudien, 2008; Badat, 2014). As the country’s higher education landscape was largely exclusionary during Apartheid years -- years which included many of the country’s higher education institutions partaking in the exclusionary policies of the time -- - the country was left with an exclusionary higher education landscape that needed to be dealt with in line with ‘new realities’ as laid out in the Education White Paper 3 of 1997. In other words, post-Apartheid South African higher education have had to deal with the injustices of the past so as to move into the future in a more inclusive and productive manner (refer to Richardson and Skinner, 1992; Badsha and Harper, 2000:16).
Owing to the above-mentioned qualitative profile, the landscape often has to be reflective when looking for a way forward. What I mean by this is that the landscape must constantly be interrogating itself as to how far removed it is from the policies of the past which it has been commanded to move away from by such momentous documents as the Education White Paper 3 of 1997 (refer to Soudien, 2008; Badat, 2014). Ultimately, the challenges are to realise the vision for South African higher education as set out by the Department of Education.
South African higher education has therefore had to deal most pressingly with issues of access for the historically excluded populations. In this instance, the higher education landscape is challenged to bring in greater numbers of the historically excluded populations into higher education institutions (see Department of Education, 2001; Cele, 2004; Badat, 2005;
Department of Higher Education and Training, 2012). This wish is clearly articulated in the Education White Paper 3 of 1997 and is most clearly visible in the direct redress of the past’s exclusionary policies when it came to admission. Furthermore, this wish also encompasses bringing in more people into the South African higher education landscape -- to occupy the landscape in the same manner as their historically included counterparts (refer to Cloete and Bunting, 2000; Matshedisho, 2007).
28 | P a g e The institutions themselves have also been challenged to accept this changing profile through not only accommodating but celebrating diversity. In other words, the institutions must always keep in mind that there is now an increased diversity of experience within the higher education