Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
23 April 2020 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small

The COVID-19 pandemic has created profound disruptions in our economy and society.  Due to the challenges of this pandemic, most universities have decided to move from face-to-face classes to online teaching (more accurately defined as emergency remote teaching and learning) so as to complete the 2020 academic year, and to prevent the spread of the virus.

Online learning vs emergency teaching and learning
Online learning is the result of careful instructional design and planning, using a systematic model for design and development.  With remote emergency teaching and learning, this careful design process is absent.  Careful planning for online learning includes not just identifying the content to be covered, but also how to support the type of interactions that are important to the learning process.  Planning, preparation, and development time for a fully online university course typically takes six to nine months before the course is delivered.

Emergency teaching and learning is a temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternative delivery mode due to crisis conditions.  Hence, one cannot equate emergency remote teaching and learning with online learning, nor should one compare emergency remote teaching and learning with face-to-face teaching. What is crucial is the quality of the mode of delivery, and although assessment methodologies will differ between face-to-face teaching and remote teaching and learning, the quality of the learning outcomes should be comparable.

Funding to universities 
The financial model used in a South African (residential) university consists of three main income sources: (i) the state or government through a subsidy (the so-called ‘block grant’), (ii) tuition fees, and (iii) third-stream income (which is mainly a cost-recovery component from contract research, donations, and interest on university investments). The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) contributes to the tuition fees through a Department of Higher Education, Science and Innovation Bursary Scheme, providing fully subsidised free higher education and training for poor and working-class South Africans (recipients will typically be students from households with a combined income less than R350 k per annum).  

The negative impact of COVID-19 on the income drivers of the university can, and probably will, be severe.  Although the subsidy from the state or government can be ‘protected’ for a cycle of two to three years through the National Treasury, the pressure on income derived from tuition fees (that component which is not funded through NSFAS) will be increasing, as households would have been affected by the nationwide lockdown and with the economy in deep recession, a significant number of jobs would have been lost. The economic downturn, due to both COVID19 and a sovereign downgrade by all rating agencies, has already negatively impacted local financial markets as well as the global economy. The multiplier effect of this would be that the value of investments and endowments decreases (at the time of writing the JSE was still 20% down compared to the previous year), and philanthropic organisations and foundations will most probably reduce or even terminate ‘givings’ to universities.

Industry, private sector, and commerce will re-assess their funding to universities, whether for research or bursary support.  Overall, it is possible that the income sources for universities can be affected negatively in the short term, but it will definitely have longer-term implications on the financial sustainability of universities.  In this regard, it would be important for universities to perform scenario planning on the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the financial position of the university, and to adjust their strategic plans accordingly.

By Prof Francis Petersen is Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State.
 

News Archive

BAccHons students achieve A+ rating in ITC exams
2017-09-07

Description: Accounting staff Tags: accounting, examinations, Thuthuka bursary, South African Institute of Chartered Accountants, Initial Test of Competence 

The lecturers of the 2016 BAccHons class: Liesel Botha,
Prof Alta Koekemoer, Prof Cobus Rossouw, Mr Kobus Swanepoel,
Dr Cornelie Crous, Prof Hentie van Wyk, and Mr Shaun Watson.
Photo: Supplied

 


The 2016 BAccHons students in the School of Accountancy at the University of the Free State achieved a 96% pass rate in the 2017 Initial Test of Competence (ITC) examinations of the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA). The ITC examinations took place in January and June, and of the 49 students that partook in the examinations, 47 passed.

Prof Hentie van Wyk, Programme Director of the School of Accountancy, said with these results, the School of Accountancy ranks among the top accountancy institutions in South Africa. “The UFS is one of 14 accredited universities offering the SAICA-accredited programme,” he said.

New teaching model a success

A new teaching and learning module, which was introduced by the School of Accountancy in 2013, seemed to have fuelled the success of the students, as it is now more learner-centred and introduced more structured support to students.  

The same strategies will be followed for the current 2017 intake. “We achieved an average pass rate of 84.8% over the past five years and if we can build on that, it will be an achievement of note,” says Prof Van Wyk. However, students should understand that much of these achievements are in their own hands.  “After leaving the UFS, they must continue with the preparations for the ITC examinations in order to guarantee their success. The ball is actually in the students’ court,” he said.

Of the African students, 91% were successful in the national examinations, while 100% of the Thuthuka bursary students passed. The average pass rate for the past five years is as follows:

2016     96%
2015     72%
2014     80%
2013     84%
2012     92%.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept