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!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 2
container_issue 5/6
container_start_page 1
container_title South African Journal of Science
container_volume 110
creator Moultrie, Tom A
Dorrington, Rob E
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1590/sajs.2014/a0069
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1733145182</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_9364f3fc049341af8d8f5b71280394ed</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>3866985821</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c330t-d7bd1f41c15a04baca5632b22cd8700631ddf3a7d57ad49afba4c50b189d3c893</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjjtPwzAUhS0EEqUws1pigSGtnWsnNhuq2lKpEgvM0Y0fkCjUrZ0A_feEx3SkT-d8OoRcczbjUrN5wjbNcsbFHBkr9AmZcK2LrBRKn5IJY6CyHCSck4uUWsY45EpOyHI1xP7NRRpd2oddcrQPdB0-mp0doespdjN6-6O9u6erDj8TbXZ0XNDlYWj6I92Mxa9LcuaxS-7qP6fkZbV8Xjxm26f1ZvGwzQwA6zNb1pZ7wQ2XyESNBmUBeZ3nxqpyPA3cWg9YWlmiFRp9jcJIVnOlLRilYUo2f14bsK32sXnHeKwCNtUvCPG1wtg3pnOVhkJ48IYJDYKjV1Z5WZc8Vwy0cHZ03fy59jEcBpf6qg1D3I33K14CcCG5yuEbnYVkZA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1733145182</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Further response to Govinder et al. (2014): Flaws in the Equity Index</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><creator>Moultrie, Tom A ; Dorrington, Rob E</creator><creatorcontrib>Moultrie, Tom A ; Dorrington, Rob E</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0038-2353</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1996-7489</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1590/sajs.2014/a0069</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Pretoria: Academy of Science of South Africa</publisher><subject>Censuses ; demographics ; Equity ; equity profile ; Euclidean distance formula ; Higher education ; Legislation ; Mathematics ; South Africa ; transformation ; Workforce planning</subject><ispartof>South African Journal of Science, 2014-05, Vol.110 (5/6), p.1-2</ispartof><rights>Copyright Academy of Science of South Africa May/Jun 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1733145182/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1733145182?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,25753,27924,27925,37012,44590,75126</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moultrie, Tom A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dorrington, Rob E</creatorcontrib><title>Further response to Govinder et al. (2014): Flaws in the Equity Index</title><title>South African Journal of Science</title><description>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.</description><subject>Censuses</subject><subject>demographics</subject><subject>Equity</subject><subject>equity profile</subject><subject>Euclidean distance formula</subject><subject>Higher education</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Mathematics</subject><subject>South Africa</subject><subject>transformation</subject><subject>Workforce planning</subject><issn>0038-2353</issn><issn>1996-7489</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNotjjtPwzAUhS0EEqUws1pigSGtnWsnNhuq2lKpEgvM0Y0fkCjUrZ0A_feEx3SkT-d8OoRcczbjUrN5wjbNcsbFHBkr9AmZcK2LrBRKn5IJY6CyHCSck4uUWsY45EpOyHI1xP7NRRpd2oddcrQPdB0-mp0doespdjN6-6O9u6erDj8TbXZ0XNDlYWj6I92Mxa9LcuaxS-7qP6fkZbV8Xjxm26f1ZvGwzQwA6zNb1pZ7wQ2XyESNBmUBeZ3nxqpyPA3cWg9YWlmiFRp9jcJIVnOlLRilYUo2f14bsK32sXnHeKwCNtUvCPG1wtg3pnOVhkJ48IYJDYKjV1Z5WZc8Vwy0cHZ03fy59jEcBpf6qg1D3I33K14CcCG5yuEbnYVkZA</recordid><startdate>20140501</startdate><enddate>20140501</enddate><creator>Moultrie, Tom A</creator><creator>Dorrington, Rob E</creator><general>Academy of Science of South Africa</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>BSCPQ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CWDGH</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>UXAQP</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140501</creationdate><title>Further response to Govinder et al. (2014): Flaws in the Equity Index</title><author>Moultrie, Tom A ; Dorrington, Rob E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c330t-d7bd1f41c15a04baca5632b22cd8700631ddf3a7d57ad49afba4c50b189d3c893</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Censuses</topic><topic>demographics</topic><topic>Equity</topic><topic>equity profile</topic><topic>Euclidean distance formula</topic><topic>Higher education</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Mathematics</topic><topic>South Africa</topic><topic>transformation</topic><topic>Workforce planning</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moultrie, Tom A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dorrington, Rob E</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Black Studies Center</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Middle East &amp; Africa Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies &amp; aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Materials science collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>ProQuest Black Studies</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>South African Journal of Science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moultrie, Tom A</au><au>Dorrington, Rob E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Further response to Govinder et al. (2014): Flaws in the Equity Index</atitle><jtitle>South African Journal of Science</jtitle><date>2014-05-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>110</volume><issue>5/6</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>2</epage><pages>1-2</pages><issn>0038-2353</issn><eissn>1996-7489</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Pretoria</cop><pub>Academy of Science of South Africa</pub><doi>10.1590/sajs.2014/a0069</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0038-2353
ispartof South African Journal of Science, 2014-05, Vol.110 (5/6), p.1-2
issn 0038-2353
1996-7489
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1733145182
source Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)
subjects Censuses
demographics
Equity
equity profile
Euclidean distance formula
Higher education
Legislation
Mathematics
South Africa
transformation
Workforce planning
title Further response to Govinder et al. (2014): Flaws in the Equity Index
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T12%3A14%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Further%20response%20to%20Govinder%20et%20al.%20(2014):%20Flaws%20in%20the%20Equity%20Index&rft.jtitle=South%20African%20Journal%20of%20Science&rft.au=Moultrie,%20Tom%20A&rft.date=2014-05-01&rft.volume=110&rft.issue=5/6&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=2&rft.pages=1-2&rft.issn=0038-2353&rft.eissn=1996-7489&rft_id=info:doi/10.1590/sajs.2014/a0069&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E3866985821%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c330t-d7bd1f41c15a04baca5632b22cd8700631ddf3a7d57ad49afba4c50b189d3c893%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1733145182&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true