Friendship constitutes human capital which imbues the social learning of low quintile students. Students often do not have much choice on curriculum; however they have choices on how to choose their friends which enhances learning opportunities to improve academic performance. This said, the suitability of the SLA approach lies in its ability to capture the choices students make in an attempt to achieve sustainable livelihoods as they pursue their studies at university.
5.7 Livelihood Context Associated With Physical Assets at University
Table 74 2009 GPA versus type of accommodation (typacoml)
typacoml N Mean
Std.
Deviation GPA20
09
off campus 21 53.76 12.276
on campus 19 49.45 9.097
t = 1.251 with a p-value of 0.219.
The startling implication is that there is no need to build more residences on the campuses.
Institutional intervention efforts should rather be channelled to other sectors of the institution that will enhance students’ academic performance. However, the association between residence accommodation and academic progress has been observed by other researchers.
The international literature argues that students staying on campus are more likely to persist and graduate than students who commute (see chapter two, 2.6.1 Residence Accommodation;
Ndzimande, 2012). Further, at UKZN, student opinion surveys have noted that accommodation was one of the services that needed improvement. By the same token an association between academic progress and type of residence accommodation is inferred (refer also to chapter six). Different results should not imply contradictions, but contexts which statistical analyses need to grapple with.
A final note on the analysis of residence accommodation is that it exhibits multiple contexts:
a home away from home for students; a place for socializing with friends; a place of study; a place of rest after a long day of academic activities. All these constituent factors reflect the different assets embedded in residence accommodation that provides a conducive environment for study for low quintile students.
The results above are against this researcher’s expectations. Frankly, it was expected that the survey findings would provide evidence to strengthen arguments for universities to build more on-campus residences and to cease using poor quality rented premises off campus. The counter intuitive results in tables 73 and 74 will be discussed again in chapter six.
5.7.1.1 Perceptions about Residence among the Survey Respondents
Perceptions about residences differed in terms of their location relative to their proximity to the university campuses, whether they were private, on-campus, or off-campus residences, shared or single rooms, and the attributes of roommates. All things considered, from the preceding factors, two categories emerged: a group of students who ‘rated’ the residence as in good condition and those who categorised the residence as not in good condition.
A residence was characterised as good when there was less noise; enough study materials;
proximity to facilities e.g. libraries and LANS; was an on-campus residence; roommates are pleasant and committed to their studies; proper sanitation; abundant resources; environment is safe and comfortable; modicum of privacy; proximity to shops (student livelihoods – assets while at university); cleanliness; and residence close to the university.
Conversely, the residence is not good when it is privately owned accommodation. There are a number of explanations for this. It could be that residence fees are exorbitant, or simply because it does not have enough facilities for academic purposes. A residence is not good because it is crowded; noisy (associated with off-campus residences); dangerous and not safe (incident of a student killed in one of the off-campus private residences in recent years); its remote location in town away from the university campus; the environment is considered not to be good; limited study in library during the day; walking to campus at night; not enough space to study. The effect associated with the location of a residence was that it either facilitated or thwarted easy access to resources. For instance, a residence located in town prevented or limited students from accessing resources any time they wanted to. This was also cumbersome in the sense that a student would want to rest during certain times, maybe during the day and prefer to study at night. At 12 or 1am there are no buses, so one has to wait until the next day. While these perceptions make sense, they also have to be seen against the backdrop of the empirical evidence in this study which showed that the mean GPA for 2008 and 2009 was higher for those who travelled by bus than those who walked to and from university (see tables 75 and 76 below).
Some residences were far from shops. The other experience associated with the residence not being a good one is that of spending more time cooking. Off campus residences are far from resources, raising the issue of isolation which Chambers (1987) identified as a deprivation
trap related to poverty. Isolation is related to student poverty. Students who stay in off- campus residences not located within walking distance of the university suffer a double conundrum of having to incur extra ‘expenses’ or an overstretched budget which is not sustainable for the academic progress of the students involved.
Most on-campus residences are up-to-scratch in terms of general human habitation and materially well-furnished. The complaints concerning some off-campus university residences revolve around their remoteness, which limit access to resources. Some residences are located in ‘notorious’ spots in town for example, Mahatma Ghandi and Russell Streets in Durban.
When SLA is applied, residence accommodation at university is associated with a host of factors that can be either assets or resources which sustain student livelihoods – the way of life of low quintile students at university. When residence accommodation is deemed to be good, student livelihoods are sustainable because there are readily available resources and assets and they are accessible to the students. These assets and resources include both physical (good residences themselves; LANs and Internet access) and human or social capital (roommates who are pleasant; and peer learning) to mention a few. All these assets provide a buffer to shocks and stresses, and students can concentrate on their studies without being disturbed.
On the other hand, when residences are not good they expose students to shocks and stresses which tend to distract them from their main activity at university which is to study and progress towards graduation. The relationship between mean GPA and residence accommodation showed that those who lived in off-campus residences scored higher than those who lived in on-campus residence (see tables 73 and 74 above).
5.7.2 Academic Progress and Students’ Means of Transport to University
There is no significant difference between the mean GPAs for 2008 (p-value of 0.632) and 2009 (p-value of 0.344) for students who walked and those who took a bus to campus. These results are shown in tables 75 and 76 below. Thus, neither travelling nor walking to university had an impact on the mean GPA of low quintile students. The implication is that
institutional efforts to help students from low quintile schools should focus on factors that have been found to have an impact on their academic performance.
Table 75 2008 GPA versus mode of transport Mode of Transport
to University N Mean
Std.
Deviation GPA20
08
Walk 6 50.66 13.018
Bus 8 53.96 12.091
t = 0.491 with a p-value of 0.632.
Table 76 2009 GPA versus mode of transport Mode of Transport
to University N Mean
Std.
Deviation GPA20
09
Walk 11 51.52 10.025
Bus 15 55.50 10.621
t = 0.966 with a p-value of 0.344.
The fact that students who were taking the bus had higher mean academic performance need some explanation. Depending on the distance travelled to university, students who commute to university will have to consider the time they wake up to attend lectures. Commuting to and from university incurs a disadvantage in terms of the time a student will spend in lectures, studying in the library or at the LAN and group study and other activities. A student who stays on campus or nearby off campus will have fewer problems than those who commute. Tentatively the only explanation to this high scoring by students who travel by bus is that they are super organised.