Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
09 April 2021 | Story Prof Francis Petersen and Prof Philippe Burger | Photo istock

With a COVID-hit, shrinking economy and a mounting public debt burden, the Minister of Finance, Mr Tito Mboweni, announced a tight budget in February 2021. This budget also constrained its allocation to the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET).

Within the DHET budget, the allocation to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) was set to increase from R34,8 billion in the 2020/21 fiscal year to R36,4 billion in 2023/24 – a cumulative increase in nominal terms of 4,6% over the three-year period. This allocation covers NSFAS bursaries to university students and students at technical and vocational education and training (TVET) colleges. 

However, the National Treasury’s Budget Review projected inflation at 3,9%, 4,2% and 4,4% in the three fiscal years from 2021/22 to 2023/24. This means that the consumer price level over the three years is expected to cumulatively increase by 13%, well in excess of the 4,6% increase that the government has budgeted for NSFAS. In addition, the government also expected the number of NSFAS students to increase.

Reallocation of the DHET budget

Predictably, student organisations countrywide have expressed their dissatisfaction, which led to protests and campus shutdowns in March 2021. Tragically, a bystander in the protests, Mthokozisi Ntumba, died during police action in Braamfontein. 

Following the protests, the Minister of Higher Education, Innovation and Technology, Dr Blade Nzimande, announced a reallocation of the DHET budget, as approved by Cabinet. A further R6,3 billion has been allocated to NSFAS. A total of R2,5 billion of this reallocation came from a reduction in the general allocation for universities, R3,3 billion from the National Skills Fund, and a further R500 million from the TVET colleges’ new accommodation construction budget.
The provision of university subsidies was already a concern before this reallocation, with the subsidy per student in real terms in the DHET budget set to drop cumulatively by as much as 7% over the period 2020/21 to 2023/24.
In addition to the subsidy and bursary pressures, student organisations are also demanding the full write-off of student debt. Outstanding student debt at South African universities stands just shy of R14 billion. Much of this debt burden is carried by students from so-called missing-middle households, defined as households with an income of between R350 000 and R600 000 per year.  

The current funding model is not financially and fiscally sustainable

With mounting financial pressure, it is clear that the current model of student funding in South Africa is not financially and fiscally sustainable. The deteriorating fiscal condition also makes it unlikely that the government will be able to fully finance the missing middle. Minister Nzimande has indicated that a National Task Team, involving various stakeholders, will be established to address the student funding challenge in a sustainable manner.

The National Task Team will have to revisit the recommendations made by the Heher Commission in 2016. The commission recommended the implementation of an income-contingent student loan scheme. With an income-contingent loan, the student will obtain a loan to cover all or part of his or her tuition, accommodation, books, living costs, and transport. 

Once a student has finished studying and started working, loan repayment can start, but it only commences when the income exceeds a set threshold. The amount paid per month is also linked to the ex-student’s income level. The loan repayment period can be capped, for instance, at 25 or 30 years. Whatever is not repaid after that, is written off.
Such a loan scheme could augment a revised NSFAS bursary scheme, and instead of the hard R350 000 family income cut-off currently applied for NSFAS bursaries, it could be implemented with a sliding family income scale that allows for a combination of bursary and loan financing. Thus, poorer students will receive a bigger or full bursary, reducing their need for a loan, while better-off missing-middle students will need to obtain a partial or full loan. 

Will students be able to afford the debt burden they incur with such loans? In 2019, BusinessTech conducted a survey among eight large South African universities to ascertain the range of tuition fees that students face per year in BA, BCom, BSc, LLB, and BEng degrees. 

Annual tuition fees ranged from R32 560 to R68 135. In 2020 and 2021, universities applied an increase of 5,4% and 4,7% in tuition fees, respectively, which lifts the range to R35 931 and R75 190 in 2021. Setting the allowance for transport, living costs, books, and personal care equal to the 2021 NSFAS allowance of up to R30 600 and assuming accommodation costs of R35 000 for ten months, means the total tuition fees and other costs will range between R101 531 and R140 790 per year. 

If this was the cost for the first year of study, allowing for further tuition fee increases of 4,7% per year for a second (2022) and third (2023) year, and 4% inflation for all other costs, the total cost over three years with a degree obtained at the end of 2023, will range between R317 716 and R441 113, to be repaid over 10 to 30 years. Note that this cost is the same order of magnitude as the current retail price of R376 500 for a Corolla 1.2T Xs, a mid-size family car typically bought by middle-class (including graduate) families. The car, though, is repaid over just five years.

A need for public-private partnership

Given the limits on government finance, even to fund all income-contingent loans, there is a need for significant private sector involvement (banks, pension funds) in funding the loan scheme. If 300 000 students each incur a loan averaging R120 000 per year, the cost would be R36 billion per year (and at a GDP of R5 trillion, be 0,7% of GDP), an amount that is surely feasible when combining government and private sector resources. Universities are institutions that affect social change and are drivers of economic growth. Hence, both the public and private sectors are key beneficiaries of the output of universities, and therefore a solution towards sustainable student finance will need to involve an appropriate public-private partnership.  

Such a public-private partnership can include a sliding scale of interest paid on the income-contingent loans, based on the student’s household income, coupled with a partial or full underwriting of the loan by government.

Commercial banks can administer the loan scheme, as they already have well-developed financial vetting systems and expertise. To reduce the risk of non-repayment, and because the loan repayment is linked to a worker’s income level, the South African Revenue Service can collect instalments and pay it over to the loan scheme.

There are, however, a number of factors that can undermine the successful implementation of an income-contingent loan scheme. These include the lack of collateral and the long lead time till repayment starts, the need to subsidise low interest rates, and lastly, the risk of low total repayments. All these will require that the government spends money to ensure the participation of banks and other funders. 

The private sector, though, needs to realise that even though a student loan system inevitably involves risk, it is in the interest of the long-term growth and profitability of the private sector to fund such loans. It is also important for government to realise that higher education is both a private and public good, and that contributing a component to student finance is an investment, and not merely an expenditure.

Prof Francis Petersen is Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State and  Prof Philippe Burger is Professor of Economics and Pro-Vice-Chancellor: Poverty, Inequality and Economic Development at the University of the Free State

News Archive

Questions about racial integration in residences answered
2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.  

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply.  What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations.  You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?) 

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

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