Wanted: PhDs -- sans laptops

Post graduate students could rather go work in the private sector where they earn obscene amounts of money and diminish SA's research outputs... these amounts are really not shocking at all. On the contrary, people in first world countries make a living off research with subsidies and funding, without even teaching. I know that the average period for a PhD in one European country is 5 years (I don't have a strong reference), studying is free and they get paid a reasonable salary. Their contributions to global research is also extensive.
It is also a mistake to penalize students for taking too long... this will simply lead to lower standards. And finishing a Masters degree in a year... what can you Master in a year... obviously the topic is not challenging enough. (I assume the Masters degrees that are being referred to are course work and not research.)

You know what happens when everything evolves around money. People will try all means to cut costs, soon we'll see:

* Less material used, and more ticks on pass box,

* the standard will be compromised as to make the student completes his studies within specified time lines,

* cut operational costs, including salaries of mentors,

* poor research outputs...

a Race against cash. We should be worried, very worried.
Already, only one University, UCT, makes it to the top 200 best universities in the world (according to the Times university rankings). But if it also feels the same pressure & start using cash as the their yard stick, they might as well kiss their current standing goobye.

The idea of incentives to post-graduates in South Africa is not a problem. In fact, it is a positive initiative which should be seen a one that would yield grate results. The good results would be among others the one mentioned by UKNZ vice-chancellor that the initiative should be seen as one trying to increase the contribution by South Africa to national and global scholarship.

I think that one of the grate problems to be created by this would be to, in the scheme include non-South Africans as well. If at all others are included, it should be students from other African countries. The way the incentive is structured should be controlled and it should produce good results for SA. The later should be seen as number one priority. If students globally are included then, they should work for SA for at least three to five years.

This idea is very attractive, it should be explored further. As much as SA needs post-graduates it also needs to ensure that most undergraduates start and finish on time. This scheme, I think, should be carefully considered even for undergraduates in fields that SA lacks skills. It should be introduced particularly for previously disadvantaged students.

Quite a competitive world out there. I would be interested, however, in finding how many Africans are engaging in higher degrees at Masters and PhD level. I would therefore wish that such universities should spend part of their intake specifically on South Africans to ensure that the African community can also study at such higher education levels. The government paying such allowances must also put it as a condition if they are seriously interested in developing higher education in the country.

i think what SA universities are doing is a good thing because a country without the mastery of education will never participate at a global level.

I am a Masters student at Stellenbosch -- not seeing any of this - my fees are over R60k! I graduated undergrad & honours both cum laude & top of my class...perhaps one of the other Universities has an offer for me? ;P

Students studying for their post graduate degree are all people that should have the ability to complete such studies. Any student must be selected on the basis of merit, and merit alone. It is time that South Africans start to drop the word previously disadvantages from their lexicon, and start to use the only use words like, merit, ability and to assist students who lack the financial resources. I think students with some form of disability such as low sight, blindness, hearing loss or other are the really disadvantaged, and only they need to receive special treatment.

In the global environment, where these students research are evaluated and must contribute, the evaluation is done on only one criteria and that is the quality thereof. After their studies these students will also only compete on merit. Post graduate students should be taught that only one criteria is applicable in the real world and that is merit.

The biggest curse in the South African lexicon is the political correct words, that is a substitute for mediocrity. In all other countries only the best students advance to post graduate studies. Even in the US, very rich students can qualify for bursaries with so called disadvantaged students.

Where do we draw the line? Can President Mandela's children be described as disadvantaged for ever and ever? Or didn't the New South Africa not create a new class of disadvantaged people after 14 years of incompetent rule? Please lets build a country on merit, and the really disadvantaged will then be taken care of, and it will be on merit.

The common mistake that most South African make in the interpretation of the term: Previously Disadvantaged Individuals (PDI) is that they associate this term with inability, non-merit based selection etc.

To mend the social and the economic disparities that exist in the SA broader social composition of our country will not take fifteen nor will they take thirty years. To start saying that will the children of Mr. N. Mandela be forever disadvantage is a very uninformed and not well thought out statement by Pieter Reyneke.

The focus here must be on how to encourage students to further consider pos-graduate studies. There are many ways that this can be achieved. And we have had from Hanz that is some UK countries this is free.

Further, I think in whatever mechanism that we propose or construct we should consider the SA background. The PDIs need to be included in the equation some how.

Firstly, let's just hop over the race discussion. This time. Pleeeeease? I'm tired of it.

Now, this time limit thing bugs me. Biologically based research tends to take more time, for instance. The "buggers" just don't always grow like you want them to.

Secondly, one year for a masters is ridiculaaaaaas! You would need to be a total workaholic with absolutely NO balance in life. You probably would not be able to socially relate to anybody else. This period is 50% of the norm. Three years for a PhD? This is 75% of the norm. Somebody in administration was subtracting by 1 ... Maybe, but you generally (note the previous word) need at least four years to do a decent job.

Interesting debate about PDI's, especially since most of them don't know they need a matric exemption to gain university entrance. Even more baffling is when Uni's require them to pay registration fees before they can even apply for funding and when the registration fee equal two months living costs for a family of five. Shameful!

What our universities are doing is a good thing. As we move towards being a knowledge economy, we need a lot of people amongst us who are researchers and innovators. The only way towards this direction is for us to produce Masters and PhDs in their thousands. We now know that countries who are excelling economically are those with high number of PhDs/researchers per 1000 of the population, and ours is a far cry.

Secondly, it would be naive to associate duration of study for a particular qualification like a PhD to quality. For heavens sake if you take eight years (as is the case in South Africa) to complete your research for a PhD chances are by the time you complete your findings would have long been overtaken by new developments. There is ample research evidence to suggest that there are blockages at Masters and PhD levels (our students are taking too long to complete compared to international standards) in this country, so obviously institutions had to do something to unlock the system and this highly commendable.

Thirdly, targeting Masters and PhD students may be a new approach in this country but successful universities all over the world had to take conscious decisions to be research universities. As a result they have become more relevant to their economies as a result of research they produce and again quality of their undergraduate degrees have improved.They also do not narrowly focus on their citizens, they are going all over the world recruiting and even offering funding to foreign students because in the end those foreign students contribute to economies where those universities are situated in one way or the other. So, as a country whilst we undrestand the need for the upliftments of our citizens we must not loose sight of a bigger picture.

@Pieter Reinecke, your response is so predictable - it is something that gets mouthed by those who insist on ignoring the history of this country. Sir, I assume you occupy a position which you consider you have because of 'merit'. How do people who have have 350 years of compounded privilege compare themselves to people who have have 350 years of compounded disadvantage?

Do you bring all this information into the equation when you talk about Mandela's children? What about Mandela's ancestors and yours and the impact of intergenerational privilege and poverty? Surely merit is a deliberate device to entrench historical advantage? Only the privileged can afford amnesia. This kneejerk argument shows a paucity of 'merit' in the thinking processes thus employed. If you are under the mistaken impression that you are being 'fair', I hate to inform you sir that this kind of sentiment (which is quite widespread) serves to alienate rather than build this nation (oops, is this still on the agenda?)

Gerhard Sheepers (spel?)

"Firstly, let's just hop over the race discussion. This time. Pleeeeease? I'm tired of it.
Now, this time limit thing bugs me."

Your first point about race discussion is 'valid' in an ideal world, but how should we IGNORE the fact that only: UCT, Stellenbosch, OUVS,Rhodes, UP are regarded as the best universities when it comes to research outputs (almost in all fields), and will always get loads of cash from most firms, pharmacetical firms & also from government. What does that say about "RESOURCES"? Thats where the discussion about race comes in.

Also, I agree with your concern about a one year long masters degree, i think there's a mistake on the side of M&G...the customary duration of Masters degree (for almost all courses) is 18months or 24months, and PhD is usually conducted in 8 semesters. Bugs just dont behave the way you want them to, unless you're feed them with GM foods...some crops need some time to show their strenght or weaknesses, how can you do that in 6 semesters? Half done work?

Any country which invests in research is a developing country. Zimbabwe killed all this. Some of us are academics with several years post-graduate experience but failing to get a PhD. Maybe its high time I take my crop science to the benefit of RSA.