Programmes not for school leavers
PRESSURES associated with Free
“Education for All will require universities
” to rethink their approach regarding the Third Income Stream.
Knee-jerk reactions must be avoided at all cost.
Third Stream Income is more than the offering of disjointed short courses. It is also more than universities entering the space of Work Integrated Learning (WIL Programmes) as part of their Third Income Stream activities.
WIL Programmes are more expensive than mainstream education (also known as the First Stream) because universities are sometimes compelled to make use of external resources to lecture these programmes.
WIL Programmes are mostly designed to provide employees access to tertiary education.
The programmes must compete for teaching space in already overcrowded universities and some universities have built satellite campuses for the purpose of controlling overcrowding, but those satellite campuses are regarded as inferior by students who prefer classes at the flagship campuses.
Thus, satellite campuses could be underutilised and costly to maintain.
School leavers are unlikely to be beneficiaries of WIL Programmes.
Activists could argue those who are already in the workplace will receive an unfair advantage over school leavers who need post-school qualifications.
It is not inconceivable activists will take the same protectionist view that labour unions have towards the youth entering the job market.
They see new entrants as a threat to their own ensconced and mediocre performance.
In the same way, full-time students can see those who are in WIL programmes as a threat and as rivals for the few jobs that are available.
Associating the Third Income Stream with short courses has issues of its own.
There are those who argue short courses are merely a Band-Aid on a festering skills shortage wound.
Short courses do not provide school leavers with sufficient levels of knowledge or practical insight and are often standalone modules that do not necessarily form part of a qualification.
They are often put together from one or more loosely coupled unit standards that do not address the real needs of industry.
A main criticism from industry is that universities offer courses and qualifications that do not meet industry requirements.
Most courses at undergraduate level could be regarded as generalist in nature.
To expect universities using the Third Stream as a means to customise programmes to meet industry needs is complex and expensive.
South Africa can ill-afford to have a plethora of customised academic programmes that do not take in account the National Scarce Skills agenda.
Third Income Streams have emerged as a device for universities to enter into strategic partnerships with industry and to solve industry-specific issues by means of specialised research or think tanks.
It is time to revisit the original tenets of the Third Stream.
–