Consequences of BBBEE set students up for failure
There has been a noticeable shift in the way education bursaries are awarded under broad-based black economic empowerment (BBBEE) regulations in recent years — and not for the better for those who most need and deserve them.
The regulatory requirements to achieve compliance are too prescriptive and, as a result, the process has migrated to something where many SA companies simply seek to maximise BBBEE points, often without much thought of potential unintended consequences. It’s not really the fault of the donors, but more that the regulatory requirement has resulted in a tick-box approach to pointearning becoming entrenched, with less focus on the human factor.
The initial and laudable idea of BEE was to promote education and empower the average person. That human factor should remain a fundamental part of corporate initiatives, so they sponsor more than just education by including many of peripheral but essential things associated with education. The argument is that many SA companies and trusts make a narrow selection of candidates orientated towards scoring BBBEE points rather than genuinely uplifting deserving disadvantaged candidates.
The scoring process tied to the BBBEE regulations opens the door to a disheartening level of discrimination in initiatives that should be nondiscriminatory and aimed at uplifting the previously disadvantaged. But companies gain more points if they sponsor particular groups, leading them to prioritise ticking these boxes over considering the actual needs and potential of individual students.
Institutions must find suitable candidates for the bursary money entrusted to them, but it is often given with such detailed preferences that the individuals ultimately selected are set up for failure. Many institutions maintain a database of suitable candidates, including those with disabilities such as deafness, but are increasingly told to find groups that earn maximum points, such as
“black females”, or even
“disabled black females”.
Given the extremely low percentage of matriculants who pass science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem) subjects with university exemption grades, qualifying candidates are scarce at the best of times. Yet students who may excel academically but do not fit the specified criteria are overlooked. Those selected often lack the necessary support and so are set up to fail, while others end up in lines of study solely for the stipends, not out of genuine academic interest, which can affect their study performance.
A second challenge is that having achieved their goal of maximum BBBEE points for their scorecard ratings some companies then take little interest how beneficiaries perform. Most companies cover only tuition fees, skipping vital aspects such as accommodation, transport and food. This creates significant challenges for students from severely disadvantaged backgrounds living in inadequate conditions. Often, these extend beyond academic performance, involving socioeconomic factors that need to be considered. Many lack basic amenities such as electricity and Wi-Fi, making it nearly impossible for them to focus on studies and succeed in a university environment. Some students lack the funds even to travel to campus, making online learning their only option.
However, the pass rate for online students is poor. If companies fail to provide comprehensive support to address the poverty many students face, their chances of success are minimal, and funds invested by corporate donors are wasted. If companies were more attuned to the home situations of these students, they would realise that covering more than only tuition is crucial to set them up for success.
The process of doing things the right way begins with companies reaching out to academic institutions that maintain comprehensive databases of students in need of assistance. Deserving individuals apply for bursaries through the institutions and are placed on a waiting list for potential sponsorships. The beauty of this system lies in the institutions’ ability to filter and match applicants with the specific requirements of the sponsoring company.
If companies still wish to pursue narrow criteria, more individuals would ultimately benefit if they awarded fewer bursaries but covered all of their costs, thereby raising the pass rate. Some forwardlooking companies already do so, and typically this is because they have identified individuals who they intend to employ post-education.
It is worth highlighting the moral dilemma for those involved: is it ethical to offer bursaries when there is an awareness that a significant portion of the recipients might not overcome the hurdles they face due to inadequate support? It is a complex issue that requires a re-evaluation of the regulations that have been put in place and the practices of companies involved in the process.