MINUTES OF THE REGISTRARS’ FORUM MEETING ON THE CENTRAL APPLICATION SYSTEM
Date:
Tuesday, 28 July 2015
Venue:
Southern Sun, OR Tambo Airport
Time:
10h00 – 15h00
Present:
Mr H Amoore
:
Chaiperson/UCT
Dr Van Staden
:
Chairperson/DHET
Mr C Beukes
DHET
Mr C Elfick
:
Learning Strategies
Prof T Meyiwa
:
DUT
Ms A de Meyer
:
DUT
Mr S Naidoo
:
Mangosuthu Univ of Technology
Mr S Legodi
:
University of Mpumalanga
Dr S Goolam
:
NMMU
Mt T Kungune
:
NMMU
Ms Z Mbuli
:
NMMU
Ms C Crosely
:
Wits
Prof M Verhoef
:
NW University
Dr S Fourie
:
Rhodes
Prof S Somniso
:
Fort Hare
Prof K Burger
:
UJ
Mr G van Wyk
:
UJ
Mr B Poo
:
UKZN
Mr J Mabelebele
:
Univ of Limpopo
Ms C Myburgh
:
UP
Mr P Muller
:
UP
Mr V Balmakund
:
UNISA
Dr C Nel
:
Stellenbosch Univ
Ms C Fayet
:
Stellenbosch Univ
Mr H Mugwedi
:
Univ of Venda
1
Apologies:
Mr A Shaikee
:
Univ of Western Cape
Ms N Lawtom-Misra
:
Univ. of Western Cape
Ms C Crosley
:
Wits University
Ms J Phiri
:
Wits University
Mr D Van Rensburg
:
Univ of Zululand
Mr K Maphinda
:
WSU
Ms N Mathimba
:
WSU
Ms H Homan
:
Learning Strategies
Dr M Weber
:
Learning Strategies
Mr P Taljaard
:
Learning Strategies
Ms J Skene
:
DHET
Ms M Meleu
:
Public Service Commission
Ms M Jangu
:
Public Service Commission
Ms Z Mbuli
:
NMMU
Mr G Vinger
:
UFS
Mr N Shaaikoni
:
TUT
Ms N Matoti
:
DHET
Ms DM Kgabo
:
Univ.SA
Ms A Viljoen
:
Univ.SA
Dr P Mrwetyana
:
Central University of Tech: Free State
Mr H Croucamp
Sefako Makgato Univ
Prof Q Temane
UNISA
2
1. Welcome and Introductions
1.1. Mr Amoore welcomed everyone present and introductions were made.
1.2. As an introduction, he indicated the following:

The Central Application Service idea has gone through a number of iterations over the past 13 years to a point
where there was now a model of what the service should be, i.e., an applications and not an admissions service.

There were crucial elements in this model which were outlined in the presentation that had been circulated.

The aim is to have one point of information and entry into the entire PSET sector and not just universities.

Dr Van Staden would start off by making a presentation on the vision and governance issues surrounding the CAS
proposal, after which the Learning Strategies team would talk about the proposed service model.
2. Background on the CAS
It was reported that:

Since this was a coherent process, a presentation had also been done at the SETA CEO Forum to sensitise them
on the issues relating to CAS.

CAS would provide a single access point for information and entry into the PSET sector. It will be a one-stop-shop
for prospective applicants, with an affordable fee for applications.

This will be for the entire PSET and not only for universities although the system will first be rolled out to universities.

It will be linked to student accommodation and financial aid.

It will provide academic programme advice linked to career advice services.

An institutional mechanism is currently being looked at in terms of the career development services. A national
career advice portal is in the process of being developed.

Milestones: A Central Application Clearing House (CACH) service has been established which a clearing house is
for students rejected on certain programmes, directed to other institutions where space is still available or referred
to colleges or enter into a learnership through a SETA.

System specifications were done in the previous round and are currently in the process of being reviewed. An
enterprise architecture was now in the process of being developed.

A number of workshops have been held to engage stakeholders and this session would serve as an engagement
process with the Registrars.

In respect of implementation, it is envisaged that the system will be ready by 2017, with a fully-fledged service
running by March 2018 for universities. The full roll-out for the colleges and the SETAs will take place in 2019/20.

A number of processes that will follow prior to implementation include legislation, stakeholder engagement, piloting,
a change strategy in terms of the system (to accommodate differences that exist, for example, in the college sector).

In terms of governance, there is a Steering Committee which is the final voice before making submissions to the
Minister. A meeting is being proposed with the Minister to sensitise him on the issues prior to final submission of
recommendations.

The Service Model is the foundation so it is important to get it right before IT systems are decided on.

There is an Advisory Committee which consists of a broad range of stakeholders which established the Technical
Working Group and the CAS Service Model Working Group to provide input into the process.

The next step is to confirm the conceptual model of the enterprise architecture.
3

A draft policy framework will come out of this process.

A Bill will then be tabled in parliament to outline the governance of this system.

The challenge now is with the implementation for the SETAs as their mandate is currently under review, which may
have an impact on the process.
3. Service model engagement for the Central Application Service
3.1 As an introduction it was reported that the presentation had been made to different forums which had provided inputs. As a
result the presentation had changed slightly incorporating comments made.
3.2 The presentation will focus on the concept of the service delivery model and enterprise architecture, i.e., overview,
components, ICT component at a high level, and institutional options for the service.
3.3 The presentation covered the following:

The critical component of the project is the service model which would enable us to look at elements such as
governance, ICT, human resources, and the implementation issues such as advocacy, stakeholder engagement
and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E).

The plan is to bring the enterprise architecture process to an end by the end of calendar year, allowing time for
finalisation before March 2016.

The overall project approach depends on the clarity of the service delivery model being the foundation and enterprise
structure which represents the baseline of what the entity will look like.

The consultations are focused on the concept of the service model and the next engagement will be with the Steering
Committee for final approval, and then with the Minister.

Process to date: Progress has been made with input received from different parties - with site visits at the KZN
CAO (including meeting with CAO IT Developers), various engagements including NSFAS, finalised the project
charter, and environmental scan visits - input fed into this process. There has been an internal workshop on options
in May 2015, followed by consultations with the CAS Working Group, the Technical Working Group in July 2015,
and now with the Registrar’s Forum. The team worked on various options which were included in a position paper.

There is a need to first understand what enterprise architecture means. There are different definitions of enterprise
architecture but they all boil down that it “translates the concept or vision for a future business or organisation into
a design document that defines how business should operate, be structured and supported with technology and
processes”.

Enterprise architecture is intended to create a baseline which is the basis of which the entity is set on - there should
at least be a baseline of how this entity would operate, i.e., its governance etc. Things may change in 3 or 4 years’
time which may prompt changes to the enterprise architecture, but the logic and thinking that led to this point would
be documented and form a baseline. It creates an audit trail of where we think it should be to what it ends up being.
The service model is a component of the enterprise architecture and indicates what needs to be delivered in the
HR, IT and governance structures.

Consensus is required on how this baseline design will look like before moving into implementation.

Typical components include the strategy and vision, business model / service model, value chain, operating model,
governance model, process model, ICT architecture, organisational structure, and performance indicators.

There has been a high degree of consensus on expectations of stakeholders and beneficiaries in the PSET sector.
There are 3 main stakeholders identified – DHET, Institutions, and Applicants. DHET wants, amongst others, to
improve access to PSET opportunities and to get information for planning and steering. Institutions want to retain
admissions autonomy and would not want a system that will lead to a disruption of their processes, but they
acknowledged the benefits of the system. Applicants want simplicity, advice, and access to PSET opportunities at
4
a low cost. A funding focus has been added under each stakeholder after the engagements in early July 2015, not
only from a NSFAS perspective but from other funding sources.

This relates to the entire PSET sector not just universities.

The key principles have been reworked to accommodate inputs from the Service Model Committee and Technical
Working Group meetings. These now include:
 The DHET inter-branch Steering Committee should be responsible for policy and legislative matters;
 DHET should ensure appropriate compliance with implementation of CAS;
 Participation should be compulsory for all applications;
 Focus should be on applications handling and not admissions;
 The target market should be “entering undergraduates into PSET”;
 CAS will be a “one-stop-shop” for information and access into PSET;
 Final objective should be “one application, one fee” with an affordable application fee;
 There should be visibility of selection and offering by institutions;
 Full cycle service from application through status changes, to confirmed offer and acceptance;
 A single database for all applications and applicants;
 Seamless transfer of data between CAS, institutions and applicants;
 Receive feedback data on “walk-ins” especially at skill centres and colleges to close the loop;
 Upon selection, communication should be between the institution and the applicant, with CAS assistance
if required;
 CAS should be self-funding.

The entire value chain will start at policy and legislation (DHET responsibility), then programme definition, outreach
and training, application handling, interface with institutions, NSFAS funding integration, clearing house, ending with
M&E reporting.

The generic high level service model will consist of DHET for policy and legislation, service partners, information
partners, a central application service that contains a single applications database, and a programmes and
qualifications database. The applications process is the combination of the applications factory and a set of outreach
and promotion activities (which will not replace the marketing activities of universities but will make sure that people
are aware of the process to apply, career advice, institutional opportunities etc.). A contact centre has been added
as another channel of outreach.

The functional decomposition would be in four ways, namely, policy and legislation, distributed services (outreach,
promotion, training, distribution), centralised services (application handling factory, payment processing and
reconciliation, database management and integration, clearing house, monitoring and reporting), and self-service
(programme submission and data management).

The target market will include entering undergraduates into PSET (school leavers, adult learners, foreign students
etc.), and applications will be for programmes specified by the individual institutions, and the target market will
exclude returning students, postgraduate students and short courses not linked to NQF etc.

The individual components of the service will include promotion, advice, applications, communication with
stakeholders, referral (clearing house), registration and information (reporting and data).

Registration will entail a person walking into a College to apply and gets accepted, and therefore the application and
registration would take place at the same time and be fed back into the CAS system to enable collection of
5
information on that cohort of the PSET system. The aim is to capture application information about the registration
and not actual registration itself.

Service partners will be all institutions offering PSET opportunities (i.e. universities, TVET colleges, Community
Colleges, Skills Centre Programmes and Higher Education Colleges), DHET and all users of PSET information,
financiers and funding agencies, and career development service providers.

A lot of information exists from different providers but there is no single store of that information. It is therefore
proposed that CAS becomes that data store of all approved programmes and programmes that can be applied for,
and this information can be used by different parties.

In respect of user fees and funding, CAS can and should be self-funding. An application will be valid once
payment is received, however applications submitted but not paid should be visible to institutions to enable them
to select and pay for the applicant. A fee should be charged for a “change of mind”, allowing for one free “change
of mind”. There will be no fee charged for referrals, and “walk-ins” should pay an application fee on registration.

An application becomes a valid application when payment is received. An application submitted but not paid
should be visible to institutions to enable them to select and pay on behalf of applicant

In terms of the universities application form data entities, there were about 102 data entities from about 17 forms
(from different universities) analysed of which only 30 critical data entities were required. Some entities, for example,
asked for Mother, Father, and Guardian details or a persal number which could possibly be required at admissions
stage and not at application stage. There were multiple ways in which the application could get through the CAS
system either through application state or registration stage.

The application form can be standardised to reflect a minimum requirement of between 50-60 data entities which
could also include financial application information. There is also a need to cater for the HEMIS requirements.

The application flow can be initiated by 5 broad triggers, namely, paper applications mailed or delivered, emailed
applications, online applications by the applicant, online application by the CAS call centre, and registrations online
by the institution’s staff.

The online application process will include registration/login and create a profile, start application, capturing of
application information, submission of application, quality assurance/screening, checking NSFAS /top-up eligibility,
payment confirmation , then move on to application flow stage 2 (application management – pending / offer /
regret / withdrawn; admissions/offer; offer acceptance; and updates and monitoring).

Application process variants: Paper applications; emailed digital applications; and assisted applications, either
through walk-in or call-in (which could be an inbound SMS requesting a call-back from the CAS), and the CAS staff
will capture the application using the online application process. Turnaround times for each method to be specified.

The key principles for the application process are that CAS will perform no function in terms of selection and
admissions and will only act directly on specifications and instructions from institutions; complete applications
meeting the requirements will be immediately submitted to the individual institutions; individual institutions will only
see applications made to their specific institution and status of applications made to other institutions. Institutions
will not have access to detailed information relating to the other institutions applied for or in fact the order in which
applications have been submitted. The interface between CAS and other institutions will be based on:
 Multiple applications for different programmes to carry order of preference for programmes applied for;
 Confirmation of funding eligibility / provisional funding from NSFAS and other funders;
 Offers may have expiry dates as selected by the institution;
 Institutions will not have access to detailed information relating to the other institutions applied for or in
fact the order in which applications have been submitted;
 System should allow for application preference rating for applications at more than one institution;
6
 Institutions should be notified where individual applicants have received acceptance at another institution
etc.;
 Applicants cannot accept more than one offer.

Cycles – It has been suggested that there should be progressive cycling of students through a series of agreed
acceptance dates, for instance, first round of applications due on 30 September; subsequent application cut-off dates;
and expiry dates. Special circumstances in terms of selective qualification such as the MBCHB will inform an earlier
application date in May.

Once the offer has been made, the applicant can decline or take up the offer. The applicant can also withdraw the
application before an institution makes a decision, and the institution can also withdraw the offer if it has expired or
other offers have been taken up by the applicant. Other application statuses included “pending” and “waitlisted”.

Updates and monitoring – CAS will update applicant and programme statuses; monitor open programme applications
and if regretted it will trigger a process of change of mind or manage applicant through the clearing house; notify and
escalate to institutions if decisions are not made. The objective of CAS is to ensure that these applicants are placed.

In respect of multiple offers and acceptances – the objective is to resolve the issues caused by multiple offers standing
open thus limiting offering places to other applicants. The applicant priority of choice will be invisible to competing
institutions, but choices in an institution will be visible to that institution. A number of scenarios proposed in respect of
multiple offers (a combination of these can be used):
 Scenario 1 : Visibility
All offer status updates immediately visible including confirmed acceptance of offer by Applicant.
 Scenario 2 : Applications and offers in applicants order of preference
If offer from a higher selected ranking is rejected, the system moves to follow ranking.
 Scenario 3 : Only one acceptance allowed
Acceptance by an applicant automatically rejects other offers.
 Scenario 4 : Offers with expiry dates
Institutions will have to determine the expiry dates. An offer not accepted before expiry is effectively
withdrawn.

A total of 10 Applications per applicant has been proposed.

Technology requirements for the system have been looked at. This includes a CAS Application & Workflow Engine
which is the core of the ICT Architecture; Front Ends (F/E) – the CAS Engine will be made available to end users through
multiple Front Ends; CAS Supporting Application will provide peripheral functionality used by the core engine (i.e. content
manager, document manager, sms/email service etc.); the Integration Layer will manage the integration between the
CAS Application & Workflow Engine and surrounding system.

Some of the envisaged CAS Application / Enterprise Architecture components already exist in organisations such as
KZN CAO. There is also some technology that exists at NSFAS that can be utilised for this process.

In terms of institutional mechanism there are 2 options to be considered, namely, OPTION 1 (Greenfields) – design and
build new CAS public entity, and OPTION 2 (Brownfields) – base CAS on existing capability and institutional best practice
with OPTION 2A being CAS established as a new or existing public entity with own capability to deliver full services;
OPTION 2B – Public entity procures services from suitable service providers; and OPTION 2C – establish new or existing
public entity with certain functions and procure certain services. In both Options there should be a DHET public entity
(at the top) established to be responsible for CAS – has legal responsibility. So in OPTION 1 the CAS public entity does
everything whist in OPTION 2 the CAS public entity procures many services from different providers (e.g. expansion of
mandate of NSFAS or CAO) or a hybrid could be an option.
7
3.4

The public entity would own the database and procure certain services.

So the option is either this gets done by government or has some level of government involvement whilst some services
are procured to different service providers.
Comments
It was suggested that due to time constraints key slides will be selected for discussion at a high level. It was suggested that points
of principle should be discussed and other issues with an element of detail should not be discussed at this session due to time
constraints. These could be forwarded to the Universities SA and DHET for processing.
The following discussion ensued:

Governance
It is envisaged that there will be a new public entity established through legislation. The governance of this project
is through a DHET Steering Committee and an Advisory Committee that get input from the CAS Service Model
Working Group and the Technical Working Group, both of which have a wide range of stakeholders which include
representation from the IT Directors Forum which will be critical in the process going forward. The Learning
Strategies team expects the process to be completed by December 2015, so the decision making processes of the
abovementioned committees and working groups will be critical. It was reported that the Higher Education Act had
been revised to allow the Minister to establish such a public entity which would be similar to a CHE, NSFAS etc. It
will have its own legislation, own Board and governance etc. The following comments were made:
 It was reported that the KZN CAO had a Steering Committee which was made of up members from different
institutions and it would be advisable to have a similar structure for the CAS entity as well.
 A concern was raised about whether NSFAS was on board in terms of synchronisation as problems had
been experienced in the past – there needs to be synergy between NSFAS and the new entity as both have
central application functionalities. It was reported that NSFAS was a key player in this process and that they
had already developed a central applications system, alignment would therefore be critical. Lessons learned
from their process will be critical for CAS.
 It was reported that NSFAS was supposed to indicate eligibility of applicants through the system; however,
there may be a large number of eligible applicants which NSFAS may not be able to fund. This, however,
may not necessary be an issue that can be addressed at this session but should be considered in the
processes going forward.
 A question was raised on whether the CAS would function nationally or be decentralised. It was reported
that the organisational structure had not been determined as yet, so it was unclear at this stage whether it
would be regional or national. It is still to be determined whether there is a possibility that CAO or NSFAS
will be the drivers of this process. As the IT architecture will be centralised, it is still to be determined how
other services will be distributed.
 A concern was raised on the issue of walk-ins – these should be discouraged entirely. It was reported that
the system would deal with the entire PSET sector, not just universities. So colleges will still provide for walkins and that process has to be accommodated in the system.
 A question was raised on how accountability of CAS to higher education would be strengthened in respect
of governance. Furthermore, how will the autonomy of the entity be ensured? It was reported that the
autonomy would lie within the entity’s governance structure, i.e., the Board. It would also depend on the
institutional option that would be chosen.
 A question was raised about inclusion of colleges in the CAS system. It was reported that TVET
representation had been lacking in the structures but there was a process underway to get them involved. It
was reported that TVETs were in the process of developing an admissions system similar to that of
universities, and while the system was still being developed their challenges had to be acknowledged.
8
Universities will implement first and then colleges will follow and it is hoped that the best practices from the
university process will be used in the implementation process of the colleges. It was suggested that perhaps
going forward a forum that is fully inclusive of all PSET players should be created.
 A question was raised on whether the entity would have guarantors – will be the institutions or DHET?
 A question was raised on whether the governance and operational risks had been considered. It was reported
that risks had been identified from a project management perspective (i.e., buy-in from universities) but not
the service model as yet – a process that is still to be embarked on. It was reported that systems with a
similar vision existed in a number of regions all over the world, but one that met the country’s requirements
needed to be identified. It was reported that there were initially also concerns when the CAO was established,
it had its teething problems but the system had worked well.
 A possible risk was raised in terms of institutions needing to gear up their systems to align with the main
system to align seamless integration with the main system. It was suggested that this would be a major risk
issue which had to be taken into account from the governance point of view. Institutional resourcing at
institutions for that initial set-up had to be considered as well, which will vary from one institution to another.

Target market
 It was reported that at the Advisory Committee meeting concerns were raised on the issue of identification
of transfers from one institution to the other.
 A concern was raised that certain universities may not be able to attract the calibre of students that they
would like through this process.
 A concern was raised that CAS might limit the marketing ability of universities.
 It was reported that universities had their regional target markets, and if applications went through CAS, what
would happen to universities’ regional and national footprint? Some universities had a regional pool of
applicants that they target, so how will this process be affected by CAS? It was reported that CAS will be
involved in promotion of the service and not marketing of individual universities. Institutions will continue to
market their opportunities and programmes, and CAS will promote the process to be followed in submitting
an application. There will be an element of marketing higher education university education through CAS but
that will not take away the marketing function by institutions. It is envisaged that promotion will be done in
different regions. Promotion and distribution can possibly be done by a different set of service providers
depending on the institutional option that will be chosen. Furthermore, the DHET has implemented the “Apply
Now” campaign which is aimed at creating awareness about careers, programmes and institutions. In the
end it will be the applicant’s choice to decide which institution to study at. It was reported that the abolition
of career guidance at schools had resulted in less awareness about opportunities in the PSET sector. The
promotion by CAS therefore will be aimed at addressing this issue and not supplementing what universities
are currently doing.
 It was reported that there were currently about 70 000 foreign students in the university system, and a
question was raised on whether it would not be an overkill to include foreign students initially in the system
given the challenges faced by the institutions with regard to foreign students. It was suggested that these
students be excluded during the first phase of implementation. It was reported that there are many South
African students who had foreign qualifications, so that had to be considered so that they are not excluded.
It was suggested that foreign students should not be excluded from the central application process as
whatever problems may exist can be overcome – the challenges were not major as they related to them not
having a SA identification number and a non-SA national senior certificate. It was suggested that this issue
should be discussed at a later stage as it had an element of detail.
 It was reported that the institutions were not in the same league, and a question was raised on how those at
the bottom of the ladder will be assured that the system will not perpetrate the imbalances in respect of
access by applicants who cannot afford to pay.
9
 A question was raised on whether the institutions will still have their own target market.
 A question was raised on whether the publications/prospectus will be per university or by sector. It was
reported that the issue of publications had not been resolved as yet. At the KZN CAO, a large amount of
time was being spent on compiling a single publication for all university programmes. It was reported that it
would be an enormous task to compile a publication for the entire PSET sector, let alone universities. It was
reported that it was possible that there may be regional publications reflecting information per region for
applicants who will not have access to the electronic version.
 Transfer students – it was reported that it was sometimes difficult to determine if a student had registered at
another institution before (for instance those that had taken a gap year). It was reported that in the admissions
office it was important to know whether an applicant had been registered before. If the transfer students were
not going to be accommodated through CAS, an institution may still need to process about 5 000 transfer
applications. It was suggested that the transfer issue therefore needs to be revisited. It was reported that
CAS accommodated a narrow definition for transfers, for instance, where an MBCHB level 2 students want
to transfer to another institution to continue with studies – these kinds of applicants should therefore not be
excluded. However this is a point of detail that needs to be detailed further.
 It was suggested that there needed to be some coherence within Registrars – there were 2 representatives
on the Advisory Committee whose views on foreign students appeared to differ to some of the other
Registrars. So there needs to be a collective decision going forward. It was reported that in the Vision 2030
document of CAS it was indicated that foreign students may be considered at a later stage. It was reported
that it would therefore be too ambitious to include foreign students during the first stage of implementation.
 It was reported that during the process of application some institutions may require Gr 12 results while some
use Gr. 11 or the June Gr. 12 (June) results, so which of these will CAS require? It was indicated that both
would be required.
 It was reported that there will be information on the diagnostic market on a macro scale that will come out of
this system that will be of great benefit for the institutions and the sector.

Central programme data store
 It was reported that the institutional qualification names will not be used in CAS, but the approved name as
per the PQM which are currently being populated.
 A question was raised on whether programme specific information (e.g. minimum admission requirements
per programme) would be collected. It was reported that programme specific information might be
collected. It will be up to the institutions to use that information, CAS will just collect it.
 It was suggested that the verification of qualifications specifically from Basic Education should be built into
the system. It was reported that verification will be immediate since the CAS will get information in the form
of examination results from its information partners such as DBE, IEB etc. However in cases where some
international qualifications cannot be easily verified the institutions will have to verify those themselves.
 A question was raised on whether applicants would be assisted with completing application forms and how
would the issue of missing documentation be handled. It was reported that there will be a validation
process, assessment for completeness and engagement with the applicant (email, phone) to complete the
application. It was reported that the DHET had a CDS unit that was responsible for career guidance to
school leavers. There was also a National Career Development Forum at the DBE in which the DHET is
part of.
 It was reported that institutions had different sets of requirements – an application might be complete for
UJ and defective for UCT for instance, it was suggested that the application should be accepted as a
complete application for UJ at that stage without having to wait for the application to fully meet the
10
requirements of the other institutions. It was suggested that there should be minimum requirements in
terms of a complete application.
 Quality and integrity of data – it has been reported that at times the data at KZN CAO is not usually complete
and accurate. A questioned was raised on who would be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of data in
respect of the new system. It was reported that a quality assurance process will be built into the CAS
system. In case of submission of fraudulent Grade 11 results, it would be difficult to verify compared to the
Grade 12 results.
 It was suggested that a sample of the application form be circulated to universities for them to work on. It
was reported that it would be beneficial to start with that exercise perhaps in a month to allay fears and
concerns and seek buy-in from the institutions. It would probably be a paper-based form so that the
institutions can have a view of how it would look like. This form would be converted into an electronic
format at a later stage. It was suggested that there should be an engagement process on the proposed
application process (possibly over a 2-month period) too trash out all the issues.

User fees and funding
 It was suggested that the system should be disabled-friendly.
 It was reported that there was huge diversity in the sector – the issue of top-up by institutions needs to
be reconsidered as some universities have a large group of applicants who are unable to pay the
application fee. It was reported that paying an application for an applicant might have unintended
consequences as applicants may end up choosing those institutions that pay an application fee. Some
institutions might also take advantage of the process by including this in their marketing material. It was
suggested that some flexibility should be allowed for institutions to decide whether they want to pay the
fees or not.
 It was suggested that perhaps some form of incentive be provided for on-line applications to encourage
a move away from paper-based applications. It was suggested that the incentive should not be a fee
waiver; it could be a cellphone or something else.
 It was reported that funding for the CAS system will not come from the national government, it will be
self-funding, so whatever fee is agreed on has to enable it to self-fund.
 In respect of funding applications, it was reported that that would be a parallel process – the application
for entry and funding will take place at the same time.
 In respect to walk-ins paying fees after registration, a question was raised on how this would be handled.
Will an applicant pay through an institution of CAS? Will there be an auditing process to ensure that a
walk-in has indeed paid an application fee? It was reported that the administration process for this may
therefore be complicated. It was reported that at the KZN CAO, in the case of walk-ins, a student does
not get registered until he or she pays the application fee to CAO. Reconciliation takes place between
the CAO and the institutions to settle the amounts.
 It was reported that in the Vision 2030 document a concept of direct application was raised with an issue
of the capitation fee being alluded to. So it would be advisable to include the issue of capitation fee as
it had been considered initially.
 In respect to funding, the incorporation of the Higher Education Admissions Agency (currently the
Matriculation Board) into the CAS governance structure or statute should be considered as this would
serve as another source of funding as this institution gets revenue for providing certification. It was
reported that the issue of this agency is a separate issue which is not in line with the CAS process.
 A concern was raised on the issue of multiple applications and whose responsibility it would be to pay
the application in the case where the applicant accepted more than one offer and the university is
prepared to pay this fee. It was suggested that this needed to be discussed further.
11
 In terms of the proposed payment for the subsequent “change of mind”, it was suggested that even
though it might be an inconvenience for the system, the applicants were largely 17 or 18 year olds that
changed their minds all the time and the issue of them being penalised for that should be reconsidered.
It was reported that the CAS system will have a career advice facility which should assist with addressing
the issue of “change of mind” through provision of advice/information. If the need for career counselling
was identified, a referral would be made to further career counselling. It was suggested that this issue
should be flagged for further debate.
 In respect of discouraging paper applications, it was suggested that there should be centres or points at
schools where applicants can apply online. It was reported that engagements were currently in place
with the Department of Labour to have some form of kiosks at different branches to enable the applicants
to apply online. It was suggested that these centres should also have career advice capabilities to enable
applicants to provide proper applications. It was suggested that from the onset there should be online
applications as the technology has evolved and applicants are able to access to online tools to make an
application. This will avoid a problem such as delays in postage, forms going missing etc.
 It was suggested that perhaps the system should have a pre-screening menu where the programmes
that the applicant qualifies for will be reflected instead of the applicant having multiple applications for
programmes that he/she may not qualify for. It was reported that there was a system that had already
been built in the market which could predict the programmes that one qualified for. So it could be possible
to build this capability into CAS. It was suggested however that applicants should not be precluded from
making an invalid application just in case he/she gets a better mark later on that would make him/her
qualify. Furthermore there is a small number of applicants who can qualify through RPL; and other
students whose international results cannot be immediately verified. So an invalid application should
not be precluded from the process.

Key principles of the application flow
 It was reported that one of the elements of design for the system was to enable the flexibility of the
selection and admission process by institutions. This aims to avoid impacting the way the institutions do
their business. Whether one institution requires a ranking order of programmes or not, that could be
accommodated through CAS.
 A question was raised on how CAS would handle a situation where institutions only look at the first
choice in the application. It was reported that this could be catered for under programme requirements
where applicants would be informed that they would be considered for their first choice.
 It was reported that the system should not exacerbate the disparities that exist between institutions, for
instance the applicant may be rejected by his/her top 3 choices with the bottom choices having to wait
much longer for the applicant to come to them. It was reported that this situation could be dealt with
quicker through visibility in CAS, with applicants also being informed of alternatives.
 It was suggested that the provision of the total number of institutions that one can apply for has to be
made in the application form. It was reported that a maximum of 10 applications has been proposed
with a maximum of 3 applications per institution. Multiple offers will be visible on the system and the
applicant will be informed that an institution may contact him/her to finalise the process.
 It was reported that there were 3 universities that were recently opened in 3 provinces and there was a
need to address the geographical needs of students by the providing access to the universities in those
regions, otherwise there will still be a higher number of applications to the higher ranked institutions.

Cycles
 It was reported that there was a lack of uniformity as decisions on firm offers were made differently by
the institutions, i.e., some made firm offers based on Gr 11, Gr 12 (June), NBTs or final Gr12 results.
12
It was reported that this was an institutional admissions issue and not a CAS application issue. This
issue should be parked for discussion amongst Registrars.
 A question was raised on how flexible the system will be in accommodating different closing dates in
light of early closing dates by some institutions. It was reported that the issue of closing dates could be
left as an institutional choice. There might also be an option of a closing date that could be agreed to
by all, e.g. 30 September. It was reported that the CAS can provide the capability of multiple closing
dates. It was suggested that perhaps a discussion with the Medical Deans Forum on the issue of having
once single closing date for the health sciences should take place.
 It was reported that some institutions close applications when their programmes are full (application for
LLB for instance may close in May if it is full) so CAS needs to accommodate that. It was reported that
closure of applications when programmes are full can be accommodated in CAS.
 It was reported that at the KZN CAO there is a discounted fee for early applications. However closing
dates do not necessarily mean cut-off dates as some institutions can still accept applications into
programmes that are not full even after the closing date.
 It was reported that for instance an LLB programme may be full but provision for that applicant can be
made for BA Law. The CAS system needs to take that into consideration.

Selections and offers
 A question was raised on whether the institution can make an academic offer even if the funding has not
been finalised. It was reported that this would be an institutional decision to make.
 It was reported that a draft application form would be circulated together with proposed statuses assigned
to entering undergraduate applicants, and institutions were requested to comment on whether those
statuses were suitable and if not provide a detailed set of other statuses required.
 A question was raised on whether waitlisted statuses at certain universities would be visible to other
institutions. It was reported that the waitlisted status would be visible in CAS and that CAS would not
prescribe to institutions on which statuses to use.
 It was suggested that applicants who had been rejected at certain institutions would be visible in CAS to
enable the other institutions that have space to approach them. A question was raised on whether
waitlisting should trigger a referral process. It was agreed that this issue should be discussed at a later
stage as there was currently no consensus.
 It was suggested that in terms of the POPI act, students should be made aware that their details may be
passed on to institutions that they have not applied for. It was reported that this issue would be
considered in CAS, for instance, in the CAO there was a mechanism during the application process in
which students are notified that their information may be used for specifically defined purposes. CAS will
interact with the student to inform them that their information may be passed on to other institutions during
a referral or change of mind process.
 Scenarios for acceptance of multiple offers – it was agreed that scenario 2 (rank ordering) and 3
(acceptance of one offer) should be taken out. There was consensus on scenario 1 (visibility) and 4
(offers with expiry date). It agreed that these 2 options were not mutually exclusive - scenario 1 had to
take place before scenario 4 could occur.

Key Principles for a CAS Service Model
 It was suggested that the draft policies and legislation should be circulated to Registrars for comment
prior to publication. It was reported that the stakeholders through the different structures that have
already been created (Working Groups, Advisory Committee) would be involved in the development
13
process. It was suggested that the individuals that were representing the Registrars on different forums
should provide feedback on key principles discussed in these forums.
 It was reported that there had been some debate about the PGCE and the Advanced Diploma which are
technically undergraduate qualifications but post a previous qualification. Should CAS accommodate
applications for these whilst under HEMIS they are classified as post degree or diploma qualifications? It
was reported that the PGCE was technically an undergraduate qualification since it was an NQF Level
7. The issue of these two qualifications needs to be clarified further.
 CAS should be a one-stop shop for access and information – it was suggested that this statement should
be qualified so as to avoid a situation where there is a very thick publication/prospectus. It was suggested
that CAS should store information on programmes and institutions in line with the initially proposed
National Information and Application Service.
 In respect of the proposed top-up by universities, it was reported that some universities may not be able
to afford this. Furthermore, application fees were being taken away from universities.
 It was reported that the business model would determine the amount of application fee that would be
required. The entity has to be self-funding as there is no intention to get funds from the fiscus. It was
suggested that a capitation fee could be considered as part on the business model in line with UCAS,
where an institution that receives the applicant pays the capitation fee.

Closing comments from Registrars
 A question was raised on how the “one-stop shop for information” would affect the websites of
universities. It was reported that a CAS link could be created to the websites.
 The issues of auditing, accountability, the role of the PSET sector (much emphasis has been on the
DHET role) have not been outlined in the presentation. Implementation is a two-way process; this cannot
be only implemented by DHET alone.
 Information on technical specifications should be made available as soon as possible to enable the
institutions to gear up their systems.
 It was suggested that the business model should also include sustainability issues.
 It was suggested that the system as an IT solution should be piloted prior to implementation.
 Industry needs to be engaged to discuss the kind of skills required that could be offered by TVETs.
 It was reported that CAS would not lead to universities losing admissions staff, instead it would result in
efficiencies within the admissions offices.
3.5
Recommendations:

It was recommended that the CAS entity has a structure similar to the KZN CAO Steering Committee which was
made of up members from different institutions.

It was suggested that perhaps going forward a forum that is fully inclusive of all PSET players should be created.

It was suggested that the transfer issue therefore needs to be revisited

It was suggested that there should be minimum requirements in terms of a complete application.

It was suggested that a sample of the application form be circulated to universities for them to work on. It was
reported that it would be beneficial to start with that exercise perhaps in a month to allay fears and concerns and
seek buy-in from the institutions. It was suggested that there should be an engagement process on the proposed
application process (possibly over a 2-month period) too trash out all the issues.

It was suggested that perhaps some form of incentive be provided for on-line applications to encourage a move
away from paper-based applications.
14

A concern was raised on the issue of multiple applications and whose responsibility it would be to pay the
application in the case where the applicant accepted more than one offer. It was suggested that this needed to
be discussed further.

Payment for the subsequent change of mind should be reconsidered.

It was suggested that the provision of the total number of institutions that one can apply for has to be made in the
application form.

It was reported that there was a lack of uniformity as decisions on firm offers were made differently by the
institutions, i.e., some made firm offers based on Gr 11, Gr 12 (June), NBTs or final Gr12. It was reported that
this was an institutional admissions issue and not a CAS application issue. This issue should be parked for
discussion amongst Registrars.

It was suggested that perhaps a discussion with the Medical Deans Forum on the issue of having once single
closing date for the health sciences should take place

It was reported that for instance an LLB programme may be full but provision for that applicant can be made for
BA Law. The CAS system needs to take that into consideration.

A question was raised on whether waitlisting should trigger a referral process. It was agreed that this issue should
be discussed at a later stage as there was currently no consensus.

Scenarios for acceptance of multiple offers – it was agreed that scenario 2 (rank ordering) and 3 (acceptance of
one offer) should be taken out. There was therefore consensus on scenario 1 (visibility) and 4 (offers with expiry
date). It agreed that these 2 options were not mutually exclusive - scenario 1 had to take place before scenario
4 could occur.

It was suggested that the individuals that were representing the Registrars on different forums should provide
feedback on key principles discussed in these forums.

PGCE and Advanced Diploma - the issue of these two qualifications needs to be clarified further.

It was suggested that CAS should store information on programmes and institutions in line with the initially
proposed National Information and Application Service.

It was suggested that a capitation fee could be considered as part on the business model in line with UCAS, where
an institution that receives the applicant pays the capitation fee.
4. Conclusion
4.1 Mr Elfick thanked everyone for their valuable inputs and indicated that there was provision to engage institutions individually
during this process. Institutions were requested to indicate to the Learning Strategies if they required such an engagement.
4.2 Dr Van Staden thanked the representatives for their participation and indicated that a platform for engagement has thus been
created. She indicated that feedback on milestones would be provided to the Registrars for comment to ensure that the
majority of the institutional requirements are accommodated. The next step would be a presentation to the Steering
Committee, then the Minister for final approval. After which the issues around the governance, management and technical
platform would be discussed. The Technical Working Group would therefore converge to discuss the technical aspects.
Universities SA will be requested to provide names for the creation of a Working Group to discuss further models within the
system.
4.3 Mr Amoore thanked the two colleagues Universities SA for organising today’s session. Registrars were requested to send
their 2016 application forms together with applicant statuses to Mr C Beukes (a circular will be sent out by Universities SA to
remind institutions) which are needed for the next stage of the process. A mechanism to ensure accountability to the
Registrars by its representatives in different forums needs to be discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at 15h12.
15
Actions arising out of the Registrars Forum meeting held on 28 July 2015
Item
1
2
Action
Responsible
Person
Registrars to send their 2016 application forms together Registrars
with applicant statuses to Mr C Beukes (a circular will be Mr Beukes
sent out by Universities SA to remind institutions) which are Ms Annie
needed for the next stage of the process.
Institutions are requested to comment on whether those Registrars
statuses were suitable and if not provide a detailed set of Mr Beukes
other statuses required
Ms Annie
Status
16