Bridging the skills gap in South Africa starts with reimagining its approach to education
According to the World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Report 2025, employers anticipate that 39% of core skills required in the job market will change by 2030. Technological proficiencies such as AI and big data, networks and cybersecurity, and technological literacy are projected to see rapid growth in demand. Human skills like creative thinking, resilience, flexibility, curiosity, social influence and environmental stewardship are also expected to rise in importance, underlining the importance of thinking about the increasing rise of AI in terms of a human-in-the-loop approach.
'Most universities are still largely geared toward traditional academic disciplines and theoretical learning, and while these remain important, they don't always translate into employability. What's needed is a mindset shift, from qualification-first thinking to skills-first education,' says Dr. Gill Mooney, Dean Academic Development and Support at The IIE, including Varsity College and Vega, educational brands of the Independent Institute of Education (The IIE).
To bridge this growing gap between what the world of work demands and what education currently provides, South Africa must urgently reassess how and what is being taught in classrooms and lecture theatres alike. A future-focused education system can no longer be built solely on rote learning, or memorisation and limited application of theoretical knowledge, but must equip young people with the skills to think critically, adapt quickly and engage meaningfully, particularly in uncertain and rapidly evolving environments.
Analytical thinking, resilience and emotional intelligence are no longer 'nice-to-haves', but are the very qualities employers now prioritise alongside technical skills like data literacy, AI proficiency and digital communication. Yet, in a country where youth unemployment remains stubbornly high and nearly half of 15- to 24-year-olds are not in employment, education or training (NEET), too many young South Africans are still entering the job market underprepared.
This is not a problem unique to South Africa, but it is one that must be tackled head-on, says Mooney. 'It requires a shift in the philosophy of teaching itself. That means moving from qualification-first models to skills-first thinking, where knowledge is contextualised, debated and applied. It means placing more value on curiosity, creativity and problem-solving than on reproducing and applying facts in limited contexts.'
Some local institutions have started responding to this challenge by reimagining what higher education looks like. For example, the IIE's teaching models across its campuses — including IIE Varsity College, IIE Vega and IIE MSA — are being adapted to centre learning on dialogue, engagement and real-world problem-solving. Students are encouraged to explore multiple perspectives and to test theory through diverse applications, whether in collaborative projects, simulated work environments or industry engagements.
'We must move from simply transmitting knowledge to fostering the kind of thinking that allows students to navigate ambiguity, work effectively in teams and continue learning long after graduation,' says Mooney.
In a labour market where change is the only constant, South Africa's education system must evolve from producing graduates with more theoretical knowledge, to producing graduates who can adapt, lead and create, in order to build a more inclusive, resilient and future-ready workforce.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
10 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Don't believe everything AI tells you: A cautionary tale for academia
Artificial intelligence can be a powerful ally but only if we cultivate the skills and habits that affirm our commitment to truth, discernment and verification. Graphic: John McCan/M&G I recently sat in a departmental colloquium where students were defending their research proposals before a panel of academics. Anyone who has gone through this exercise will attest the process of defending your master's or PhD proposal is, at best, a daunting and nerve-racking experience. The task is simple in theory but difficult in practice. The panel is seeking the student to prove their proficiency in conducting the research and clearly showing the gap their proposed study addresses. All this, within 10 to 15 minutes, to an audience in the room (mostly online nowadays) but also an audience that is referred to as the theory, policy and practitioner press. In the corner of the student (hopefully) are the watchful eyes and muted voices of their supervisor or supervision team, who themselves stand on trial before their academic peers. The result is a delicate dance, where the spoken word must align seamlessly with the written proposal. As one student delivered their presentation, my attention was caught by their mention of an article allegedly authored by me, published in the Journal of Business Ethics. A quick glance at their supporting documents confirmed my worst fear. I have never published a paper in that journal. Further to this, I don't even research or write in the field of business ethics. So, what had happened? The student had fallen victim to what is now widely known as an AI hallucination. In simple terms, they had placed their trust in the output of an artificial intelligence tool, which generated what looked like credible information about their topic and about me but which was fabricated. For the student, the AI-generated information seemed real. It said all the 'right' things and cited the kind of references a proposal defence panel would expect to hear and see. Yet, the result was false, misleading and nonsensical. What was missing was a critical process of verification needed long before the student could even be deemed to be ready to take part in this proposal defence. What we saw here was a double-layered false confidence. First, the false confidence of the AI itself. This came in the form of confidently making connections based on user prompts, some factual, others wholly fictional. Second, the false confidence of the human user through presenting AI hallucinations as fact, without adequate scrutiny, driven perhaps by the desire to impress a panel at all costs. What happened to the student? I choose to reflect on that last, because what happened to us as supervisors was equally instructive and worth reflecting upon. The experience (including the imaginary Journal of Business Ethics paper) became, for me, what sociologist Charles Horton Cooley called a 'looking glass self'. I began to see aspects of myself and my supervision practice through the mirror held up by the student's mistake. I prefer to describe what the student did as a mistake, rather than a punishable offence or as one leading survey in the United Kingdom called it, a violation of academic integrity. This incident sparked months of reflection for me. In a sobering way, I realised that my own experience with AI was not so different from the student's. Like our students, we supervisors are also searching for timely information to meet pressing demands. Like our students, we too struggle under the weight of information overload, turning to tools like AI to help us navigate the maze. And, like our students, we must also develop and exercise a critical eye in the face of what may appear to be technological progress. How did we respond as supervisors? For starters, given the growing popularity of AI among our students, some of us as supervisors felt the need to use such technology ourselves, to stay abreast of changes in the academic and professional landscape. It meant moving out of our comfort zones into spaces of discomfort, just to keep pace with what is happening. Some supervisors were quick to praise the functionality AI offers. For instance, using an AI tool to analyse large amounts of data in a short space of time was seen as a significant benefit. Others highlighted how AI could help students develop their writing and critical thinking skills provided that students' own voices remained central to the work, rather than being drowned out by the machine-generated content. We are truly living at the height of a technological moral panic, a time when our ability to exercise our executive functioning skills is being eroded precisely when we need them the most. It is a period in which voices of falsehood are legion, spreading at the mere click of a button, often without verification or reflection. Yet, this is also the very moment when we must be most vigilant and rise to the task of cultivating the skills and habits that affirm our commitment to truth, discernment and verification. Through the experience of watching students present their research proposals, we came to realise that our struggles are, in fact, the same; they just take different forms. As supervisors in our department, we embarked on a month-long dialogue with our students, acknowledging and praising the benefits of AI while also cautioning them about the dangers of AI hallucinations. Our hope is that this process proves beneficial for everyone involved. This benefit is anchored in helping students, supervisors, the university and ultimately society at large to achieve success rooted in both innovation and integrity. AI can be a powerful ally but only if we, both students and supervisors, treat its outputs as a starting point for inquiry, not the final word. Professor Willie Chinyamurindi is in the Department of Applied Management, Administration and Ethical Leadership at the University of Fort Hare. He writes in his personal capacity.
Mail & Guardian
12 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Flood damage: An act of God or governance failure?
Car pool: When Toyota's vehicle assembly plant in Durban flooded in 2022, the car maker's insurer took the municipality to court. Photo: File Everyone remembers April 2022, when torrential rains pummelled KwaZulu-Natal and floodwaters ravaged homes, roads and factories. Lives were lost, families were displaced and infrastructure was destroyed. And although every part of the province bore the weight of that disaster, one story in particular has found its way into court. Toyota South Africa Motors (TSAM), has a vehicle assembly plant situated in Prospecton, Durban. It had to shut down operations after the factory was submerged during the flooding. The production lines came to a grinding halt. Pictures circulated on social media of thousands of brand-new vehicles drowning at the plant. They were written off before they even had a chance to hit the showroom floor. The damage was extensive, costs were astronomical and timelines for recovery, like so many things in this country, were uncertain. TSAM's insurer has now taken the matter to court, not against Toyota, but against eThekwini metropolitan municipality. The company said in court papers that the flooding and subsequent damages were exacerbated by the city's failure to maintain a key piece of public infrastructure: the Umlaas Canal. The canal was built decades ago to divert the uMlazi River around the industrial zone of Prospecton. According to court papers, the insurer contends that the canal, which is owned by Transnet but managed and maintained in conjunction with the department of transport and eThekwini municipality, had deteriorated to the point of failure. They argue that its structural integrity was so compromised that it could not handle the sheer volume of stormwater during the April floods. And that had the infrastructure been properly maintained, the damage would have been far less severe. Now, whether you agree with that line of reasoning or not, it raises a much bigger question that we should all be asking: when infrastructure fails and the consequences are devastating, who is responsible? Here in South Africa, we are immune to poor service delivery. We normalise the dysfunction of paying for taxes but not receiving adequate, standard services in exchange. The idea of infrastructure collapse has become so familiar that it's practically baked into our national psyche. Potholes are the size of bathtubs (some literally with trees growing in them). Water leaks persist for weeks and remain unrepaired, despite numerous community complaints made through official channels. Substations that blow up have not been maintained for decades. We shake our heads, mutter something about service delivery, and move on. Until something big breaks and suddenly, it's not just about inconvenience anymore. It's about livelihoods. It's about public safety. It's about people losing their jobs, assets and sometimes even their lives. So when a flood rolls through Durban and knocks out one of the biggest vehicle assembly plants in the southern hemisphere, we have to ask, was it really just an 'act of God'? Or was it a long-ignored systems failure, the kind that we have come to expect and accept? One of my followers offered an informed perspective that deserves space in this conversation and brings some balance to the argument. According to him, and a report by Aecom (Toyota's engineers), eThekwini hasn't been idle. Since the 2017 floods, it has reportedly worked with Toyota to implement several mitigation measures: installing a new outfall at Clark Road, upgrading the Prospecton Road canal and developing an attenuation facility upstream. Toyota has also enhanced its internal stormwater systems, all with the aim of managing flood risks well beyond standard design thresholds. Aecom estimates the 2022 flood was a one-in-200-year event, significantly more severe than the historic 1987 flood. If that's accurate, then perhaps this wasn't purely a failure of infrastructure maintenance, but rather a climate event that overwhelmed even above-standard defences. The same reader raised another important point: litigation might do more harm than good. The Dutch report on damages in the Prospecton area put the figure at a staggering R75 billion. In his view, that kind of crisis demands collaboration and consolidated funding, not courtrooms and high legal costs. Litigation, he argues, divides the very stakeholders who should be working together. Can you hold a municipality accountable for systemic failure, without undermining the partnerships that are needed to prevent future ones? There have been numerous instances in South Africa where maintenance funds are unaccounted for, and the organisation responsible remains unaccountable. Perhaps that's why we jump to the conclusion that eThekwini has failed us. This court case raises a real question: can a municipality be held liable for damages when its failure to maintain public infrastructure leads to a private sector loss? And if the metro loses this case, what precedent will it set for other private businesses whose operations were affected? I believe this will not be an easy case to prove. Municipalities will almost always argue that they don't have the funds, the personnel or the resources to do everything that needs to be done. If you're a business, and especially if you're a business investing in fixed assets such as factories, you operate under the assumption that the state will maintain basic infrastructure. That's not a luxury. It's the bare minimum. It's part of the social contract that underpins why we pay rates and taxes. In a province that is prone to flooding, business and government should constantly be working together to prevent infrastructure failures. This is a case worth hearing. Because if we start drawing legal lines around what constitutes negligence when it comes to public infrastructure, maybe it will shift the conversation away from vague, hand-wringing frustration and into the realm of consequences. Here's the part that really gets to me when it comes to infrastructure failures caused by government negligence: the fact that so many people read about these kinds of things and barely flinch. It seems that the norm for South Africans is to accept what is. Not because they don't care, but because they've stopped expecting better. There is a kind of quiet resignation that has set in when it comes to local government, especially in provinces such as KwaZulu-Natal, where service delivery failures have become the norm rather than the exception. It's almost as though people have internalised the dysfunction. 'That's just how it is,' they say. 'You can't fight a metro.' So they fix things themselves. Or they wait. Or they leave. They move to metros where things work better. Cape Town. George. The Garden Route. Suddenly, a flood in Durban isn't just a disaster, it becomes part of a trend. A reason to relocate. A push factor or a final straw in a long list of reasons people and capital are fleeing underperforming municipalities. And this is where the real long-term damage begins. When people leave a metro, they don't just take their frustrations with them. They take their tax contributions. Their rates. Their investments. Their businesses. Their energy. Their participation. They leave behind a shrinking municipal budget, fewer resources and a growing hole in the very capacity that was meant to fix the problem in the first place. And on the flip side? The metros that are functioning, or at least doing a passable job, are now buckling under the pressure of inward migration. Your roads are more congested. Your schools are fuller. Your hospitals have longer queues. And your infrastructure, which might have been designed for a population of a million, is now trying to support 1.5 million or more. It's a vicious cycle. One that affects everyone, not just the people who made the move. So although it's easy to say 'vote with your feet', we need to ask what kind of long-term structural consequences that has for our cities, our budgets and our national cohesion. I would like to see more municipalities being challenged. I want legal precedents that remind us that governance comes with responsibility. That neglect has a cost. That service delivery isn't optional. Not just outrage on X. Not just another audit report. Real legal and financial accountability. But more than that, I want us as citizens, residents, ratepayers and business owners to start asking better questions. To demand better answers. And to stop accepting mediocrity as the default setting for how this country is run. Yes, things are hard, we are resilient and budgets are tight. But we need to stop accepting those excuses as explanations for why things never improve. What happened at Toyota in Durban wasn't just a flood. It was a failure. A systems failure. And perhaps a governance failure. It could serve as a reminder that we are not powerless. That accountability doesn't begin and end at the ballot box. That municipalities exist to serve us, not the other way around. And that if we don't start holding them to a higher standard, we will be repeating this cycle of damage, disappointment, and decay. So the next time a pipe bursts or a streetlight stays broken for six months, don't just shrug. Ask the hard questions. Demand the repair. File the complaint. Write the letter. And, above all, stay on top of it. Because if we don't hold our metros accountable, who will? Ask Ash examines South Africa's property, architecture and living spaces. Continue the conversation with her on email (
The Herald
a day ago
- The Herald
FlySafair pilots to embark on two-week strike after deadlock in wage negotiations
FlySafair pilots belonging to the Solidarity workers' union will embark on a two-week strike from Monday after a deadlock in wage negotiations with management. The duration of strike, which was initially planned to take place over one day, was changed to 14 days after the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) agreed to the rules for the industrial action. In a statement on Friday, the union said due to the company's unwillingness to meet the demands of the workers, they were left with no other option but to down their tools. 'In its reaction to the company's aggressive action, Solidarity decided to extend the one-day strike initially planned to 14 days.' The more than 200 pilots are demanding a 10% salary increase and improved working conditions. FlySafair's offer to workers of a 5.7% salary increase along with some additional adjustments to compensation was rejected by the vast majority of Solidarity's members. The labour union accused the airline of issuing a seven-day lockout for pilots represented by Solidarity. 'This step indicates that the airline is deliberately opting for a prolonged and destabilising conflict, which could possibly be extended by another seven days should Solidarity and its members not comply with management's controversial demands. This means that no flights can be guaranteed for the next two weeks.' The union claims the airline is in a good financial position as it recently made millions through the sale of shares. 'Ironically, this lockout was announced while, according to media reports, two of FlySafair's most senior management members, CEO Elmar Conradie and CFO Pieter Richards, have recently realised more than R90m by selling shares — possibly at the expense of FlySafair's licence conditions.' TimesLIVE
