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

There’s more to media freedom than the Secrecy Bill
2012-05-04

4 May 2012

 “Media freedom is a universal human right. It cannot be abolished, but it should be managed.” The freedom of the media is protected by numerous formal documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the South African Constitution, and is commemorated annually with the celebration of World Press Freedom Day.

 “As long as those in power have something to hide, media freedom will be under threat. This is a war that takes place on many fronts,” says Ms Willemien Marais, a journalism lecturer at the Department of Communication Science at the University of the Free State (UFS).

“On the one hand we have to take a stand against institutional threats such as the proposed Protection of State Information Bill. This is diametrically opposed to everything that media freedom and freedom of expression encapsulates.

“But on the other hand we also need to educate and transform our society. It is not only up to journalists to defend media freedom. Newspaper reports on the public hearings on this Bill earlier this year proved that ignorance concerning media freedom is a big threat. The lack of resistance against the Secrecy Bill from the general population clearly illustrates that people aren’t aware of what they are about to lose.”

 Ms Marais says the rise of social media and the accompanying awareness of individual freedom of expression have paved the way for more people to exercise this right. “The role of social media in the Arab Spring has been highlighted numerous times. The power of social media is undeniable – but alas, so is the lack of access to especially social media. We can only increase media literacy if we increase people’s access to the media – new and traditional.”

A high level of media literacy is also vital following last month’s recommendation by the Press Freedom Commission of a system of independent co-regulation for South Africa’s print media. This system proposes replacing government regulation with a panel consisting of representatives from the print industry as well as members of the general public. “It is abundantly clear that this system can only work if those members of the general public are media literate and understand the role of media freedom in protecting democracy.”

“The media is not a sentient being – it consists of and is run by people, and human beings are fallible. Protecting media freedom does not only mean fighting institutional threats. It also means increasing media literacy by educating people. And it means owning up to your mistakes, and correcting it.” 

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