Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
03 July 2020 | Story Dr Nico Jooste and Cornelius Hagenmeier
Cornelius Hagenmeier,left, and Dr Nico Jooste.

South Africa has established itself as a regional higher education hub, which has until the recent COVID-19 pandemic been hosting increasing numbers of international students. The vast majority hails from the neighbouring countries in the Southern African Development Community and includes increasing numbers of postgraduate students, specifically doctoral students. The country has become one of the global epicentres of the pandemic. We argue that while the country is grappling with combating the virus, its higher education system and stakeholders must keep focusing on the post-COVID-19 future. The way the country and its higher-education system treat international students in the present crisis may determine whether it will be able to retain its position as a regional higher education hub, and whether it will be able to be a driver for PhD capacity development in the SADC region and Africa following the pandemic.

South African higher education has promoted ethical practices that govern their engagements with international students. The Code of Ethical Practice – accepted by all South African universities, guide the university’s actions for all phases of study, including the phase where students would be required to go home and return for studies. The common obstacles influencing international student mobility to and from the country caused by the lack of cooperation by government departments, should not have been a problem in this case, as all activities are coordinated by the South African National Coronavirus Command Council (NCCC). According to South Africa’s President, Cyril Ramaphosa, “the NCCC coordinates government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. The NCCC makes recommendations to Cabinet on measures required in terms of the national state of disaster. Cabinet makes the final decisions”. (Written response by the President to written question NW 725 by Adv. G Breytenbach dated 5 June 2020.)  

International Students in the Initial Phase of the COVID-19 Crisis
The lockdown that the country imposed in March 2020 to combat the pandemic, resulted in a large part of its international student population returning home, particularly those hailing from neighbouring countries for whom travel was easy to organise. At the time, it was anticipated that students would be able to return after a three-week lockdown of the country. Most universities expected that their international students would come back to campuses after an extended recess in April 2020. At many universities, international offices assisted international students with travel arrangements and organised for those unable to travel, mostly students from other regions of the world, to remain in university residences until campuses would reopen. International students expected to be able to return to their universities soon, resulting in many travelling light and leaving essential learning, research, and personal items behind in residences.

However, controlling the COVID-19 pandemic proved far more complicated than anticipated, and the lockdown was replaced by a risk-adjusted strategy that provides for five alert levels, of which level five has the most severe restrictions on public life. As the country progressed to level four on 1 May 2020, South African universities were permitted to resume face-to-face classes for final-year medical students. On Wednesday (13/5), directions were gazetted that “allow for the once-off travel of final-year medical students studying at a public higher education institution to travel from their homes to the university campus where they are registered for study during the period 8-31 May 2020” (GG No. 43319 of 13 May 2020). No clarity was provided on whether this would include international students; the wording was at least wide enough to allow for this. Stakeholders interpreted the regulations in different ways, but at least a limited number of international final-year medical students returned from Lesotho. 

Preparation for the Resumption of Select Face-to-Face Classes 
When the South African Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr Blade Nzimande, charted the way forward for South African higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic, he enunciated the principle that “all students should be given a fair opportunity to complete the academic year 2020” (speech on 23 May 2020). In this political announcement, he stated that final-year students in programmes requiring clinical training (e.g. nursing, and dental sciences) would begin from 1 June 2020. He postulated that other critical groups of students, including final-year and postgraduate students who require access to laboratory equipment, should be allowed to return to the country’s campuses. He did not refer in any way to a planned exclusion of international students, and at least some universities included international students in their planning for the resumption of select face-to-face classes in June 2020. 

International Students in Basic Education
When the teaching of select grades in basic education resumed in South Africa in June 2020, students from neighbouring countries were allowed to resume their daily commutes across the South African border according to regulations gazetted on 28 May 2020 (GG No. 43364 of 28 May 2020). It appears from individual reports received from border posts that boarding school students are returning from Lesotho and Botswana.

International Students in Higher Education   
As the country moved to alert level three on 1 June 2020, some stakeholders in South Africa’s higher education system anticipated that at least international students from neighbouring low-risk countries such as Lesotho or Botswana would be allowed to return when their face-to-face classes would resume. Directions issued by the South African Department of Higher Education and Training on 8 June 2020, however, unequivocally stated that ‘international students who returned to their home countries during the lockdown will only be permitted to return to campuses when Level 1 of the strategy is announced’ and explained, without elaborating on detail, that ‘these international students will be supported through remote learning until they return. Tailored catch-up plans will be implemented when they return.’ Consequently, many international students are likely to return after face-to-face classes in their modules have recommenced, and it is left to individual higher-education institutions to ensure that they are not ‘left behind’. Core challenges to ensure this include the cost of data in the main source countries of international students, as well as limited internet speed. Some universities are trying to alleviate this by providing data allowances for international students; however, this is not yet practised uniformly throughout the sector. 

Core Challenges 
To avoid harm to South Africa’s reputation as a preferred destination for international students, the country and its higher-education system will have to find satisfactory answers to critical questions:

• How can the South African higher-education system ensure that no international student is left behind in modules for which face-to-face classes resume, especially considering those who require clinical/laboratory training? A recent webinar between Vice-Chancellors from six SADC countries highlighted the fact that connectivity and data availability throughout Southern Africa is still one of the biggest challenges facing all higher-education systems. Not only the South African system, but all other SADC universities will have to be innovative to resolve this problem, especially where all have committed themselves to not leave any students behind.

• Who will bear the considerable cost for necessary interventions, such as the provision of data to international students abroad?

• How can the training of critical professions for combating COVID-19 in Southern Africa be sustained at South African higher-education institutions when degrees such as medicine (MB ChB degree) require clinical training and examinations through a practical component?

• How can reputational damage to South Africa as a destination for international students be avoided when, apparently, high school students from (at least) Lesotho are allowed to enter the country and return to boarding schools, but students in critical health science degrees are not allowed to return to classes?

Way forward
We posit that careful balancing of the often conflicting priorities of combating COVID-19, ensuring that no international students are left behind, and sustaining the training of professionals who are critical in the fight against COVID-19 in Southern Africa, is necessary to ensure that South Africa contributes optimally to the fight against the pandemic in Southern Africa and sustains its position as a preferred destination for international students post-COVID-19. It will be important to demonstrate to the world that the country is living up to its world-renowned Constitution, which entrenches equality as a fundamental right. Any differentiation between international and local students, as well as between secondary and tertiary education students, which does not have a rational connection to a legitimate government purpose such as protecting public health, may infringe the country’s internationally celebrated Constitution, taint South Africa’s standing as a higher education hub, and jeopardise its existing reputation as a preferred destination for international students. Moving forward, thoughtful action is required to ensure that future generations of international students choose to study in South Africa following the pandemic, and to encourage those who left in haste when the COVID-19 crisis intensified, to return to complete their studies. 

 

Opinion article by Dr Nico Jooste is Senior Director of the African Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation (AfriC) and a Research Fellow of the University of the Free State (UFS) South Campus. Mr Cornelius Hagenmeier is Director of the Office for International Affairs at the UFS and serves on the AfriC Board of Directors. Both are writing in their personal capacity.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

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