Rethinking how we measure the success of higher education in SA

This shift from inputs to outcomes has significant implications for how universities define success.

Why traditional measures fall short

Du Plessis says that input-based metrics are not without value. There are aspects of quality in higher education that related the resources deployed in education. Staff-to-student ratios can reflect investment in teaching. Likewise, institutional prestige can be built on decades of academic achievement. But in South Africa, where economic development is the priority, access to an education that offers career opportunities – that reflects the needs of the labour market – trumps input measures of quality. In these circumstances, higher education institutions should not try to achieve prestige trough exclusivity but instead work towards providing maximum job market relevant opportunities.

An outcome-based view of quality shifts the focus to what higher education actually delivers to graduates. Dr du Plessis says the questions higher education providers need to ask include:

• Do graduates have the skills employers need?
• Can they apply what they have learned in real-world contexts?
• Are they able to contribute from the outset of their careers?

These are harder questions to answer than measuring staff-to-student ratios or counting academic publications, but they address the greatest potential impact of higher education in our context.

In this framing, student success with employability becomes a central measure of success – indicating whether education unlocks opportunities in the world of work.

It also reframes the role of higher education institutions – shifting the focus from exclusivity to the broader access for those who wish to acquire the knowledge, skills and attributes necessary to help build a prosperous South Africa.

Designing for real-world readiness

If outcomes matter most, then Du Plessis says the design of higher education needs to change accordingly. He highlights three shifts, already underway in parts of the sector, which point to what this looks like in practice.

1. Bringing work into learning: “One of the clearest implications is the need to integrate work and learning far more closely,” says Du Plessis. Employers are increasingly highlighting the gap between academic knowledge and workplace readiness – something that cannot be addressed through end-of-programme internships alone. Instead, industry needs to be embedded throughout the learning process. As an example, he cites STADIO’s policing and law enforcement courses, where senior police staff teach. “People often criticise us for not using academics to teach the courses, but it’s a feature – not a bug,” he says. “We’re not teaching policing in the abstract. We’re bringing in experts in the field to teach with us.”
2. Using technology to personalise learning: Technology is often discussed in terms of access or efficiency, but its real impact lies in enabling more personalised learning journeys. Digital platforms make it possible to tailor content, pace, and progression to individual students, rather than forcing everyone through the same linear pathway. They also support the development of what Du Plessis describes as “algorithmic thinking”, a way of understanding and working with the logic that underpins modern technology and IT systems.
3. Building flexible pathways: A more diverse student population requires learning models that reflect how students actually live and study. Many are balancing education with work, family responsibilities and financial pressures. Rigid academic calendars and all-or-nothing qualifications fail to reflect these realities. More adaptable systems – with multiple entry points and modular, stackable components – allow students to progress in ways that suit their circumstances, supporting both access and completion.

Rigid academic calendars and all-or-nothing qualifications do not reflect these realities. More flexible systems, with multiple entry points and modular, stackable components, allow students to progress in ways that suit their circumstances. Over time, this can support both access and completion, two of the system’s most persistent challenges.

Why this matters beyond the classroom

Rethinking how we measure quality is not only a concern for higher education providers. For employers, it speaks directly to the readiness of graduates entering the workforce, and the cost and effort required to bridge skills gaps. For policymakers, it raises questions about how success is defined, funded, and regulated within the sector.

For students and their families, it changes how the value of higher education is understood. Prestige alone is no longer a sufficient proxy for opportunity. What matters is whether a qualification leads to meaningful participation in the economy.

This broader shift also challenges societal assumptions about what constitutes a “good” higher education journey. A more diverse, flexible system may not always align with traditional hierarchies of status, but it may be far better suited to the country’s needs.

“The expectation that we will somehow deliver what is needed by doing the same thing we’ve always been doing is misguided,” Du Plessis says.

If the goal is to equip more South Africans with relevant skills, and to do so at scale, then the system will need to be designed and judged differently.

The question is no longer what goes into higher education, but what comes out of it. DM