Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Will South Africa retain its status as a preferred international student destination post-COVID 19?

03 July 2020 | Story Dr Nico Jooste and Cornelius Hagenmeier

Jooste_Hagenmeier_read more new — 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

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger

2007-11-26

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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