University of Cape Town

No Show Survey Report 2010

Institutional Planning Department

August 2010

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2

2. Context 2

3. Telephone Survey 3

4. Survey Results 3

4.1 Representivity 3

4.2 Findings 5

5. Discussion 18

Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire 21

Appendix B: 2010 No Show Survey Findings Coloured Respondents 22

1. Introduction

The Institutional Planning Department conducts a No Show Survey on a cycle of every three or four years. The No Show survey was last conducted amongst the 2006 group of successful applicants who failed to take- up their academic offers at UCT.

The purpose of this survey is to investigate the: current activities of applicants, their main reasons for not registering at UCT, what UCT could have done to secure their ultimate registration as well as their impressions of UCT’s application process. This report will discuss the findings of the 2010 No Show Survey.

2. Context

UCT received 18722 new undergraduate applications for the 2010 academic year and made academic offers to 7442 applicants. Forty-five percent (3471) of the 2010 admissions chose not to register at UCT (a 3% drop from last year’s 58% take-up rate). International applicants received 17% (1276) of the academic offers made by UCT for the 2010 academic year, 666 (52%) international admissions chose not to enrol at UCT (please note that the survey population in this report excludes international applicants).

The demographic profile of the 2010 “no show” admissions is as follows: 27% Black, 8% Coloured, 14% Indian, 29% White, 19% International and 2% Unknown; 59% of the 2010 “no shows” were female and 41% were male. Of the 3471 “no shows” 18% were financial aid eligible and 30% were offered residence accommodation by UCT.

For the 2010 academic year, 67% of all the “no shows” and 69% of the all admissions achieved notional A and B aggregates; 31% of all 2010 notional A and B aggregate admissions failed to take up their academic places at UCT. Majority of the “no shows” with notional A and B aggregates were First Choice Commerce (30%), Engineering (22%) and Humanities (21%) admissions, in addition the non Cape Town based admissions made-up the largest proportion of the “no shows” with notional A and B Matric aggregates.

3. Telephone Survey

The 2010 “no show” admissions were surveyed telephonically by SA Commercial Direct, a Cape Town based Call Centre Company; the survey questions (shown in Appendix A) were very similar to those asked in the 2006 No Show Survey. The list of applicants surveyed, was generated by comparing 2010 offers from the ASR report to a list of new undergraduate enrolments from PeopleSoft as of end February 2010. The qualitative and quantitative analyses of the survey responses have been integrated in the results section of this report.

4. Survey Results

4.1 Representivity

The 2010 No Show Survey had a 23% response rate, a total of 646 admissions out of 2805 [1] responded to the survey. The representivity of the survey responses was tested by comparing the demographic profile and location of the survey respondents to the demographic profile and location of the “no show” survey population.

Table 1: Demographic Profile of the Survey Population

Population Group
Gender / Data / Black / Chinese / Coloured / Indian / White / Unknown / Total
Female / No. / 541 / 10 / 187 / 285 / 624 / 45 / 1692
Row% / 57% / 59% / 66% / 60% / 62% / 58% / 60%
Male / No. / 400 / 7 / 94 / 189 / 388 / 29 / 1107
Row% / 42% / 41% / 33% / 40% / 38% / 38% / 39%
Unknown / No. / 1 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 6
Row% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 4% / 0%
Total No. / 942 / 17 / 282 / 474 / 1013 / 77 / 2805
Total Row% / 100% / 100% / 100% / 100% / 100% / 100% / 100%

Female respondents are slightly over-represented in this survey: the “no show” survey population is made up of 60% females and 39% males whilst the survey respondents consist of 62% females and 38% males.

Table 2: Representivity Grid by Population and Home Address

Survey Population / Black / Chinese / Coloured / Indian / White / Unknown / Total
CT Home / 59 / 4 / 176 / 34 / 283 / 28 / 584
Non CT Home / 883 / 13 / 106 / 440 / 730 / 49 / 2221
Total No. / 942 / 17 / 282 / 474 / 1013 / 77 / 2805
Survey Respondents
CT Home / 16 / 1 / 46 / 9 / 32 / 3 / 107
Non CT Home / 274 / 4 / 19 / 98 / 135 / 9 / 539
Grand Total / 290 / 5 / 65 / 107 / 167 / 12 / 646
Representivity Grid
CT Home / 27% / 25% / 26% / 26% / 11% / 11% / 18%
Non CT Home / 31% / 31% / 18% / 22% / 18% / 18% / 24%
Total No. / 31% / 29% / 23% / 23% / 16% / 16% / 23%

The comparison above shows that the survey respondents are reasonably representative of the “no show “survey population: there is however a slight under-representation of white “no shows” and CT based “no shows”. The survey findings and their implications can thus be applied to the entire 2010 “no show” population.

Table 3 Survey Respondents: First Choice Faculty by Offer Faculty

Offer Faculty
First Choice Faculty / COM / ENG / HUM / LAW / MEDS / SCI / Total
COM / 136 / 4 / 12 / - / 1 / 1 / 154
ENG / 6 / 92 / 3 / - / 1 / 18 / 120
HUM / - / - / 111 / - / - / - / 111
LAW / - / - / 10 / 13 / - / - / 23
MEDS / 17 / 11 / 11 / 5 / 100 / 48 / 192
SCI / 1 / 1 / 5 / - / - / 39 / 46
Grand Total / 160 / 108 / 152 / 18 / 102 / 106 / 646

Table 3 shows that the largest proportion of the survey respondents received offers from their first choice faculties. Majority of those who didn’t get into their preferred Faculties were Health Sciences (48%) and Law (43%) applicants.

4.2 Findings

An analysis of the survey findings will be discussed below; the survey responses are presented using four main categories of interest- CT and non-CT based, First Choice and Second Choice Offer, notional A and B Matric aggregate and non Cape Town based African, Indian and White respondents. It is important to note that in certain cases, the total number of responses will exceed the total number of respondents as various survey questions were open to more than one response.

Question One: Current Activity (2010)

This section will explore the current activities of the 2010 “no show” survey respondents. The table below captures the current activities of the respondents by offer type.

Table 4: Current Activity during 2010 by Offer Type

Activity / First Choice Offer / Second Choice Offer / ADPC / Total
Studying elsewhere / 346 / 89% / 198 / 89% / 29 / 85% / 573 / 89%
Employed / 25 / 6% / 6 / 3% / 1 / 3% / 32 / 5%
Seeking Employment / 4 / 1% / 6 / 3% / 1 / 3% / 11 / 2%
Gap year or travelling / 14 / 4% / 8 / 4% / 0 / 0% / 22 / 3%
Grand Total / 390 / - / 222 / - / 34 / - / 646 / -

The majority of the respondents (89%, down from the 92% reported in the 2006 No Show Survey) indicated that they were studying elsewhere. Five percent indicated that they were employed, 2% were seeking employment whilst 3% indicated that they were traveling and/or taking gap year. Two respondents whose main activity was ‘other’ indicated that they were re-writing some Matric subjects; the rest listed reasons for not coming UCT or reiterated one of the above mentioned activities instead of stating ‘other’ activities.

Main activity of the 2006 “no shows”:

·  92% studying elsewhere

·  4% Gap year or travelling

·  2% Employed

·  2% Other

Table 5 No Show Respondents Studying Elsewhere: Top 8 Institutions by Home Address

CT Home / Non CT Home / Grand Total
Witwatersrand University / 2 / 2% / 153 / 31% / 155 / 27%
Stellenbosch University / 37 / 45% / 53 / 11% / 90 / 16%
University Of Pretoria / 3 / 4% / 67 / 14% / 70 / 12%
University of KwaZulu Natal / 0% / 64 / 13% / 64 / 11%
Rhodes University / 3 / 4% / 31 / 6% / 34 / 6%
University of the Western Cape / 17 / 21% / 6 / 1% / 23 / 4%
University Of Johannesburg / 0% / 19 / 4% / 19 / 3%
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University / 0% / 17 / 3% / 17 / 3%
Grand total / 82 / 100% / 491 / 100% / 573 / 100%

The “no show” respondents (89%) studying elsewhere for the 2010 academic year, preferred to study in four main institutions- the University of Witwatersrand (27%), University of Stellenbosch (16%), University of Pretoria (12%) and the University of KwaZulu Natal (11%).

The great majority of the Cape Town home respondents (37 out of 82) chose to study at the University of Stellenbosch whilst majority of the non-Cape Town based respondents (155 out of 491) seemed to prefer the University of Witwatersrand.

Table 6: Current Activity of First Choice Offer Respondents by Home Address (2010)

CT Home / Non CT Home / Total
Studying elsewhere / 47 / 76% / 299 / 91% / 346 / 89%
Employed / 11 / 18% / 14 / 4% / 25 / 6%
Seeking Employment / 1 / 2% / 3 / 1% / 4 / 1%
Gap year or travelling / 6 / 10% / 8 / 2% / 14 / 4%
Grand Total / 62 / - / 328 / - / 390 / -

The largest proportion of the First Choice Offer respondents (89%) indicated that they were studying elsewhere; this response pattern is very similar to that of the overall group.

Table seven shows that the First Choice offer respondents based in Cape Town mainly chose to study at the University of Stellenbosch (47%) and the University of the Western Cape (15%); whilst the non Cape Town respondents preferred the University of Witwatersrand (33%) and the University of Pretoria (15%).

Table 7: First Choice Offer Respondents: Most Popular Institutions by Home Address

Home CT / Non CT Home / Total
University of Witwatersrand / 1 / 2% / 100 / 33% / 101 / 29%
University of Stellenbosch / 22 / 47% / 31 / 10% / 53 / 15%
University of Pretoria / 2 / 4% / 46 / 15% / 48 / 14%
University of KwaZulu Natal / 0% / 36 / 12% / 36 / 10%
Rhodes University / 3 / 6% / 23 / 8% / 26 / 8%
University of Johannesburg / 0% / 12 / 4% / 12 / 3%
University of the Western Cape / 7 / 15% / 3 / 1% / 10 / 3%
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University / 0% / 10 / 3% / 10 / 3%
Grand Total / 47 / 100% / 299 / 100% / 346 / 100%

Table 8 Second Choice Offer Respondents: Main Activity by Home Address

Activity / CT Home / Non CT Home / Total
Studying elsewhere / 31 / 76% / 167 / 92% / 198 / 89%
Employed / 3 / 7% / 3 / 2% / 6 / 3%
Seeking Employment / 3 / 7% / 3 / 2% / 6 / 3%
Gap year or travelling / 2 / 5% / 6 / 3% / 8 / 4%
Grand Total / 41 / - / 181 / - / 222 / -

Majority of Cape Town based (76%) and Non Cape Town based (92%) Second Choice Offer “no show” respondents indicated that they were studying elsewhere for the 2010 academic year. The largest proportions of the Cape Town based Second Choice offer respondents reported that they were studying at the University of Stellenbosch 39% and the University of the Western Cape 29%. 26% of the Non-Cape Town based Second Choice offer respondents indicated that they were studying at the University of Witwatersrand, 14% at University of KwaZulu Natal, 12% at the University of Pretoria and 12% at University of Stellenbosch.

Table 9 Second Choice Offer Respondents: Most Popular Institutions by Home Address

Home CT / Non CT Home / Total
Witwatersrand University / 1 / 3% / 44 / 26% / 45 / 23%
Stellenbosch University / 12 / 39% / 20 / 12% / 32 / 16%
University of KwaZulu Natal / 0% / 24 / 14% / 24 / 12%
University Of Pretoria / 1 / 3% / 20 / 12% / 21 / 11%
University of the Western Cape / 9 / 29% / 2 / 1% / 11 / 6%
Rhodes University / 0% / 8 / 5% / 8 / 4%
University Of Johannesburg / 0% / 7 / 4% / 7 / 4%
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University / 0% / 6 / 4% / 6 / 3%
Grand Total / 31 / 100% / 167 / 100% / 198 / 100%

Table 10: 2010 Notional Matric Aggregates by Population Group

Matric Points / Data / Black / Chinese / Coloured / Indian / White / Unknown / Grand Total
A / no / 42 / 9 / 61 / 79 / 3 / 194
39+ points / row% / 14% / 0% / 14% / 57% / 47% / 25% / 30%
B / no / 181 / 4 / 28 / 35 / 76 / 8 / 332
33-38 points / row% / 62% / 80% / 43% / 33% / 46% / 67% / 51%
C / no / 50 / 1 / 20 / 10 / 8 / 89
27- 32 points / row% / 17% / 20% / 31% / 9% / 5% / 0% / 14%
D / no / 7 / 5 / 1 / 13
21-26 points / row% / 2% / 0% / 8% / 0% / 1% / 0% / 2%
E / no / 6 / 1 / 1 / 8
20- points / row% / 2% / 0% / 2% / 0% / 0% / 8% / 1%
Other / no / 4 / 2 / 1 / 3 / 10
row% / 1% / 0% / 3% / 1% / 2% / 0% / 2%
Total no / 290 / 5 / 65 / 107 / 167 / 12 / 646
Total % / 100% / 100% / 100% / 100% / 100% / 100% / 100%

Table 10 shows the notional Matric aggregate of the 2010 “no show” survey respondents by population group. 51% of the “no show” respondents achieved a notional B Matric aggregate whilst 30% achieved a notional A Matric aggregate. In contrast 48% of the 2006 “no show” respondents had a notional A Matric aggregate whilst 33% had a notional B Matric aggregate.

Table 11: Notional A and B Matric Aggregates: Most Popular Institutions by Home Address
CT Home / Non CT Home / Total
University of Witwatersrand / 2 / 3% / 133 / 29% / 135 / 26%
University of Stellenbosch / 32 / 45% / 45 / 10% / 77 / 15%
University of KwaZulu Natal / 0% / 63 / 14% / 63 / 12%
University Of Pretoria / 3 / 4% / 60 / 13% / 63 / 12%
Rhodes University / 2 / 3% / 24 / 5% / 26 / 5%
University of Johannesburg / 0% / 17 / 4% / 17 / 3%
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University / 0% / 15 / 3% / 15 / 3%
University of the Western Cape / 8 / 11% / 2 / 0% / 10 / 2%
Grand Total / 71 / 100% / 455 / 100% / 526 / 100%

The largest proportion (45%) of Cape Town based no show respondents with notional A and B Matric aggregates reported that they were studying at the University of Stellenbosch for the 2010 academic year. The most popular institutions amongst the non Cape Town based group were the University of Witwatersrand (29%), the University of KwaZulu Natal (14%) and the University of Pretoria (13%).