Further response to Govinder et al. (2014): Flaws in the Equity Index

The authors note the response of Govinder et al. to their comments on an earlier article of theirs on the proposed Equity Index (EI) to measure the transformation of higher education in South Africa. Despite their attempts to allay concerns about the intrinsic weaknesses of the EI, many concerns rem...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:South African Journal of Science 2014-05, Vol.110 (5/6), p.1-2
Main Authors: Moultrie, Tom A, Dorrington, Rob E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Censuses
demographics
Equity
equity profile
Euclidean distance formula
Higher education
Legislation
Mathematics
South Africa
transformation
Workforce planning
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The authors note the response of Govinder et al. to their comments on an earlier article of theirs on the proposed Equity Index (EI) to measure the transformation of higher education in South Africa. Despite their attempts to allay concerns about the intrinsic weaknesses of the EI, many concerns remain. The purpose of this brief response is not to attempt to re-argue each and every point we leave most to readers to decide - but to highlight some of the more fundamental issues with which the authors failed to deal adequately. Govinder et al. claim that the mathematics of the EI is not and has not been shown to be flawed. This is simply not true. They have pointed out that the formulation preferred by Govinder et al. is not only mathematically incorrect, but also that it leads to double counting. The authors seem to think that mathematical criticism can be dismissed by simply saying it is not so.
ISSN:0038-2353
1996-7489
DOI:10.1590/sajs.2014/a0069