I have followed with keen interest the controversy over the
announcement of cut-off marks for Nigeria’s admission processes for the
2017/2018 session, with many commentators and the general public insisting that
it is unwise, insensitive and retrogressive, to reduce the cut off mark for
admissions into our tertiary institutions: 120 for universities, 100 for
polytechnics and monotechnics, and a tentative 110 for Innovative Enterprise
Institutions (IEIs). Whereas the complaint has been that there is a dumbing
down and lowering of standards, which is, of course, an obvious reaction, I
argue that there is need for a better understanding of the context in which the
decision was taken in the hope that this would shed some light on this
controversial matter.
I write as a reporter and as a stakeholder who attended the
2017/2018 Policy Meeting on plans and modalities for the conduct of admissions
into tertiary institutions in Nigeria at the Andrews Otutu Obaseki Auditorium,
National Judicial Institute in Abuja, on August 22. The meeting started
on Sunday, August 20, 2017. On Monday, August 21, there was a special session
for admissions officers of all tertiary institutions in Nigeria. There are 524
tertiary institutions in Nigeria (minus the IEIs) and every institution was
represented on Monday and again on Tuesday, when a special policy session was
held and decisions were taken at a combined session of Registrars and Vice
Chancellors, Provosts and Rectors. The Obaseki Auditorium was filled up at this
meeting, which was attended by over 1, 600 stakeholders in the education
sector. In other words, it was a meeting of stakeholders and the decisions were
decisions taken by all tertiary institutions in Nigeria. It is, therefore,
wrong to accuse JAMB or report that it is JAMB that is fixing cut-off marks for
university admissions.
I recall that at the meeting, when we were about to go into
the policy making session, the Minister of Education had to excuse himself on
the ground that he had other commitments; all JAMB officials were also asked to
leave the hall. The JAMB Registrar explained that he wanted the heads of
tertiary institutions to be the ones to take the decisions, not JAMB, not the
Minister, and he didn’t want either the Minister or his own staff in attendance
so nobody would turn around to accuse JAMB or the Ministry of Education of imposing
decisions on the tertiary institutions.
There were other stakeholders in attendance, the heads of
the National University Commission (NUC), TETFUND, the National Board for
Technical Education (NBTE), National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE),
NECO, NYSC and the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) – all as
observers. The heads of IEIs stayed away from this particular meeting
because they had earlier informed JAMB that the heads of other tertiary
institutions are in the habit of out-voting and outnumbering them at policy
meetings and they would rather have their own separate meeting to serve their
own interests. I concluded, there and then, that students’ admission into
tertiary institutions in Nigeria has become big business and politics, with
stiff competition between public and private institutions.
This clarification is necessary because as I see it, some of
the participants in that meeting have since gone on a holier-than-thou
expedition to distance themselves from it. At the meeting, the JAMB Registrar
repeatedly pointed out that the University of Ibadan had made it clear that its
cut-off mark would never go below 200. There are other universities like that,
including the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and the University of Ilorin.
I am surprised however that there has been so much uncomfortable hypocrisy from
some universities that attended the meeting. The Vice Chancellor and the
Registrar of the Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti were both in attendance and
the former spoke enthusiastically in support of the decisions. Yes, the ABUAD
VC was there, but curiously, his employer, the proprietor and founder of the
Afe Babalola University was the first person to denounce the decisions. We
should take special notice, however, of the intervention of the Vice Chancellor
of the Tai Solarin University of Education, Professor Oluyemisi Obilade, and
Professor Femi Mimiko. Out of over 1, 600 participants at a policy meeting,
only two persons are standing up to report the truth?
The objectives of that policy meeting were inter alia, to
brief the Degree, National Certificate in Education and National
Diploma-awarding institutions on the plans and modalities for the conduct of
the 2017/2018 admissions exercise, introduce the Central Admissions Processing
System (CAPS), seek the cooperation and understanding of stakeholders, discuss
and agree on submissions of estimated intakes and compliance with the current
prescribed quota from the NUC, NCCE, and NBTE, adherence to
institutional/programmes cut off marks, compliance with entry requirements,
procedure for selection of candidates who may not be admitted at their first
choice institutions, adherence to admissions schedule as approved at the Policy
meeting and implementation of the science-arts ratio. These issues were tabled,
discussed, voted upon and decisions were taken. The states and private tertiary
institutions were exempted from the last criteria, to be determined by their
proprietors.
It is important to understand the three main backgrounds to
this policy meeting. At a similar policy meeting held on June 2, 2016,
the various stakeholders at this same 2017 meeting, had adopted 180 as the
minimum cut-off mark for admissions to all tertiary institutions in
Nigeria. The regulator’s subsequent discovery is that most of the
tertiary institutions did not respect this decision. They admitted students who
scored below 180 and never reported same to JAMB; they introduced all kinds of
back-door schemes and programmes under which admissions were offered.
In effect, the admissions process into Nigerian tertiary
institutions was compromised; standards were violated. JAMB, therefore,
decided that every institution must declare a lowest cut off point for its
programmes and that every admission must be properly reported and documented,
and brought to the notice of the regulator in order to enforce standards and
have accurate statistics for educational planning. I got the impression
for example, that some higher institutions must have been admitting all kinds
of persons who did not have basic qualifications and never passed through the
central admissions body. It is curious, isn’t it, that the same schools
that voted for 180 in 2016, are now asking for 120, 110 and 100?
Secondly, the evidence was provided to the effect that many
tertiary institutions do not respect the admission quota in line with the
Federal Character prescribed by the Constitution. Most universities
simply admit students from their catchment areas and ignore students from other
parts of the country. Bayero University, to cite a notable example,
admits over 50% of its students from Kano state, and yet it is a Federal
University. Even when students from other parts of the country who apply to
such universities have high, qualifying scores, they are ignored.
Thus, every year, many qualified students from different
parts of the country are left stranded. They miss the opportunity to go to
university not because they are not qualified, but because they have been shut
out by the politicization of education in Nigeria. To correct this mischief,
JAMB has now created a second tier admissions platform called the Central
Admissions Processing System (CAPS). It is an admissions-market where
students who have been rejected by their first choices can seek alternatives, where
JAMB can help rejected candidates seek other offers, and every institution can
go in search of qualified candidates who may have been rejected elsewhere. This
is to help increase the admissions ratio in the country, reduce the
politicization of admissions, check the exodus of Nigerian students to foreign
universities, create more opportunities and ensure greater equity. The only
ouster clause in this arrangement is that at the end of the day, the candidate
is free to reject any offer that he or she does not find acceptable, and that
has no limit whatsoever.
JAMB in its explanation further recognized that ordinarily,
a school certificate result should be enough requirement for admission to
tertiary institutions as is the case in many countries of the world. In order
to raise standards, Nigeria has a system whereby secondary school graduates
still have to sit for UTME conducted by JAMB and Post-UTME, further testing
conducted by the tertiary institutions, and confront other unwritten
hurdles. The higher education seeker in Nigeria is thus taken through
greater rigour than similar applicants elsewhere. In 2016, the Policy Meeting
on Admissions had banned further conduct of the Post-UTME to reduce the burden
faced by Nigerian students. At the 2017 meeting, however, the Minister of
Education, Mallam Adamu Adamu lifted the ban, noting that the tertiary
institutions deserve the independence they have always asked for over their
admissions process.
Indeed, this was the main point of the August 22 meeting.
Tertiary institutions in Nigeria are the ones to determine their own admissions
process. Cut off marks are to be fixed by the Senate of each institution,
not JAMB. What JAMB has created through the CAPS is an open market that
empowers admission-seekers, promotes healthy competition and provides an avenue
for students to raise queries when they feel they may have been short-changed.
The insistence on reporting is to aid transparency and data collection, we were
told.
If this works, in no time, every tertiary institution will establish its own brand equity. As is the case elsewhere, the labour market in Nigeria will soon begin to differentiate between the students who graduated from a school that admits with 100 over 400 marks and another school whose cut off mark is as high as 250, in the same manner in which there is a marked difference in the UK between a graduate of Metropolitan University and a graduate of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. This differentiation in quality and standards is perhaps long-needed in the Nigerian education market.
That is as far as the meeting went, and the report of what I
saw and heard. My real concern, and a probable justification for the outcry
over the reduction of cut–off marks below the average score is, however,
traceable to the fact that Nigeria’s education system is now terribly
commercialized and unequal. The law of supply and demand is probably at
the root of the politics of cut-off marks. We have more than 524 institutions
looking not for students but customers! Ordinarily, most students want to
attend elite schools and the Federal institutions, which charge subsidized
fees. For instance, Federal Universities charge as low as N35, 000, the state
universities about N150, 000-N200, 000, and the private universities as much as
N750, 000.
The competition for space in the schools with lower fees is
much higher, often leaving the ones with expensive school fees with fewer
applicants. While the more economically attractive schools can afford to have
high cut off marks, it is not impossible that lower cut-off marks would attract
more students to the less patronized schools! The implication is not far to
seek. Beyond the policy meeting of August 22, and all expressed good
intentions, and regardless of the choice of the stakeholders, therefore, JAMB’s
next and biggest challenge, in my view, is to ensure that market forces do not
ultimately subvert quality and standards in the tertiary education
sector. It is also up to parents to determine the kind of school that
they want their children to attend, and for every institution to choose between
mediocrity and excellence.
0 Comments