South Africa’s challenge is not merely a deficit in university access; it is a structural optimisation problem in which demand, institutional capacity, programme differentiation and system design are misaligned.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of young people complete matric hoping to enter higher education. Many qualify for university admission. Many do not find a place. Others enter programmes that are overcrowded, under-resourced or poorly connected to work.
Employers complain about scarce technical skills, municipalities lack engineering and maintenance capacity, infrastructure projects are delayed and the country imports technologies it should be able to design, adapt, repair and manufacture.
The contradiction should force us to ask a difficult question: Is South Africa’s post-school system designed for the future? In my view, it is not.
We have traditional universities, universities of technology, technical and vocational education and training (TVET) colleges, sector education and training authorities,
occupational qualifications and quality councils.
We also have policy documents that speak of integration, articulation and skills development. But in practice, the system remains fragmented and hierarchical.
Universities are treated as the first prize. TVET colleges are too often treated as a second-choice destination for those who did not make it into university. This is one of the most damaging assumptions.
South Africa does not need to choose between universities and TVET colleges. It needs a third pillar: universities of applied innovation.
By this I mean a new category of higher education institution built from selected TVET college clusters and mandated to combine artisan training, applied degrees, entrepreneurship, technical services and regional problem-solving.
The institutions would not replace TVET colleges or abolish the wider TVET system. Instead, they would create a pathway in which selected, high-performing TVET clusters, after meeting strict readiness criteria, become university colleges of applied innovation and later full universities of applied innovation.
This is not a call to rename all TVET colleges as universities. That would be reckless. Nor is it a call to weaken academic standards. A university of applied innovation must be earned through law, quality assurance, governance reform, academic capacity and demonstrated regional impact, not announced through political convenience.
Traditional universities would continue to focus on broad academic education, professional formation, scholarship and research.
Universities of technology would continue to focus on applied knowledge, technological education, postgraduate qualifications, innovation and applied research.
Universities of applied innovation would focus on advanced technical education, occupationally aligned qualifications, work-integrated learning, artisan development, technical services, small enterprise support and entrepreneurship.
The distinction matters. Universities of applied innovation must not become weaker versions of universities of technology. They must have a different purpose. Their strength should be proximity to industry, communities, municipalities, farms, mines, factories, hospitals, ports, energy systems and local economies. They should be built where technical capability, enterprise creation and applied problem-solving are most needed.
South Africa has the foundation for such a system. The country has 50 public TVET colleges operating across hundreds of campuses. This is an extraordinary national asset. They reach rural towns, townships, secondary cities, industrial zones and provinces that are often underserved by universities. Yet we have not converted the footprint into a powerful higher technical education, entrepreneurship and innovation system.
There is also a hard access argument. The 2025 National Senior Certificate results produced about 345 000 learners who achieved Bachelor-level admission. Yet public universities cannot absorb every qualifying learner. This suggests potential annual access pressure of about 100 000 to 150 000 learners, depending on how one accounts for private higher education, repeat applications, affordability, students who choose other pathways and those who do not apply immediately.
The pressure cannot be resolved by expanding traditional universities and universities of technology only. Many are under strain from infrastructure limits, student housing backlogs, staffing pressures and funding constraints.
Universities of applied innovation could become a decisive intervention. If selected TVET college clusters were reorganised into university colleges of applied innovation, a modest target of 2 000 additional higher education entrants per converted institution a year could create about 100 000 new places nationally.
Spread across the TVET campus footprint, this would require only a few hundred additional students per campus, phased in over time and linked to infrastructure, staffing and quality-readiness criteria.
This is not utopian. It is practical system redesign. But universities of applied innovation must not abandon the artisan pipeline. A legitimate concern is that converting selected TVET college clusters into universities could reduce the constrained production of artisans. The danger is real if the reform is badly designed.
South Africa does not need fewer artisans. It needs more artisans, more advanced artisans and more pathways for artisans to become technicians, technologists, business owners and innovators.
No institution should qualify as a university of applied innovation if it reduces artisan production. The model must be artisan-plus, not artisan-minus.
A young person should be able to move from an occupational certificate to a trade, from a trade to an advanced technical diploma, from a diploma to a technical degree and from there into industry, entrepreneurship or further professional study.
An experienced artisan should be able to return to a university of applied innovation to become a master artisan, technician, technologist, trainer, enterprise owner or applied innovator. This would strengthen the artisan system rather than shrink it.
Universities of applied innovation should be measured not only by degrees awarded but also by artisans produced, apprenticeships completed, trade tests passed, workplace partnerships created and artisan-led enterprises supported.
The funding model is therefore critical. If universities of applied innovation are funded like traditional universities, they will eventually imitate them. They will chase publication counts, doctoral numbers and academic prestige even when their real value lies elsewhere.
The funding formula should reward five outputs: access, artisan production, graduate employment, entrepreneurship and applied problem-solving. This would include apprenticeships completed, trade tests passed, student enterprises created, small, medium and micro enterprises supported, industry income generated, technical services delivered and regional challenges solved.
South Africa cannot continue funding post-school institutions as if the only successful graduate is a job seeker. In an economy with deep unemployment, the country must also fund institutions to produce job creators, enterprise builders, technical service providers, cooperative founders and innovators.
A university of applied innovation should receive funding when its students create enterprises, when it incubates township and rural businesses, when it supports SMMEs and cooperatives, when it commercialises student and staff innovations and when its graduates become employers rather than only employees.
There will be objections. Some will argue that TVET colleges face governance, funding and quality challenges. That is true. But the answer is not permanent subordination. The answer is differentiated investment, stronger governance, better staffing, clearer missions and more coherent pathways.
Others will argue that South Africa has universities of technology. That is also true. But universities of applied innovation would not replace them. They would complement them by creating a more grounded, regionally embedded, occupationally connected and entrepreneurship-driven layer of higher technical education.
The deeper issue is status. South Africa must stop treating technical education as a consolation prize.
No country can industrialise, maintain infrastructure, build energy systems, modernise agriculture, localise manufacturing or digitise public services without high-level technical capability.
The first step should be a national green paper on universities of applied innovation, followed by five regional pilots linked to clear economic priorities such as energy, water, ports, agro-processing, manufacturing and digital infrastructure.
The Department of Higher Education and Training should establish readiness criteria, create a differentiated funding framework, protect artisan production and measure success through access, quality, employment, enterprise creation, technical capability and regional impact.
South Africa needs universities of applied innovation, not as a downgrade from universities and not as an upgrade in name only from TVET colleges but as a new national instrument for dignity, work, innovation, artisan development, entrepreneurship and regional development.
The debate should begin before the next enrolment crisis, not after it.
Professor Fulufhelo Nemavhola is the deputy vice-chancellor for research, innovation and engagement at the Durban University of Technology. He writes in his personal capacity.