Prof-Ishaq-Oloyede
– Professor Ish’aq Oloyede, JAMB registrar

Although 120 was agreed on, it is, however, not binding on all because each university sets its own standard and is bound by it, while JAMB has an oversight function, supervises and ensures the criteria and standards of the institutions are adhered to. The outrage that followed is an indication that most Nigerians do not read beyond the headlines…


Professor Ish’haq Olanrewaju Oloyede, registrar, Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) must have been bemused at the controversies and negative reactions that have trailed the cut-off marks announced by administrators of tertiary institutions at the Board’s policy meeting on plans and modalities for the conduct of the 2017 admissions held last week. I prefer the term “administrators of tertiary institutions” advisedly, because I was present at that meeting and the consensus of a baseline score of 120 at the lowest, which is now “talk of the town”, was collectively resolved at the JAMB-supervised meeting, attended by all vice chancellors, rectors, provosts and education stakeholders across all the universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education, whether federal, state or privately owned. Although 120 was agreed on, it is, however, not binding on all because each university sets its own standard and is bound by it, while JAMB has an oversight function, supervises and ensures the criteria and standards of the institutions are adhered to. The outrage that followed is an indication that most Nigerians do not read beyond the headlines; it is also a natural reaction to change or anything new.

The idea, according to JAMB, is part of its bid to innovate and improve the admissions process, and return tertiary institutions to their rightful, legal and autonomous statuses. JAMB had earlier developed what it called the Central Admissions Processing System to streamline the admission process and address the challenges associated with the manual approach, ‘restore the autonomy of tertiary institutions’ and adhere to the guidelines and standards these institutions have set for themselves. Candidates are also “empowered with information on available choices of institutions and programmes”, with admission opportunities enhanced and multiple admissions eliminated.

At the core of JAMB’s reform is what is referred to as regularisation, which was previously fraught with irregularities. By the way, tertiary institutions have their peculiarities and idiosyncrasies, and in line with their supposed autonomy, almost all of them offer diploma, pre-this or pre-that and remedial courses. Although these pre-degree courses are not recognised by JAMB, they invariably have to be reconciled and regularised with JAMB. At the point of regularisation to meet up with JAMB criteria, these institutions engage in under-the-table deals, including bribery. There are also awkward situations where, for example, colleges of education do not follow JAMB’s requirement that Mathematics should be made compulsory for a student wanting to study Education/Yoruba, Education/Hausa or Arabic, only to do regularisation at a later date in shady circumstances, even though according to Professor Oloyede, admissions criteria ideally should not be JAMB’s responsibility. The new concept should be able to checkmate the excesses of compromised JAMB officials and university administrators.

However, with these reforms, institutions do not have to do any undercover deals because the law setting up JAMB is without prejudice to their peculiarities, idiosyncrasies and standards. This new arrangement is expected to bring sanity and transparency to the system as JAMB ceases to be an obstacle to any institution’s set standards, as long as there are no breaches. Professor Oloyede wondered why JAMB should be so stringent on paper when its laws are obeyed in the breach, and when it could be transparent and bring everyone on board to do the right thing. He made an example of countries like the UK and our next-door neighbour, Ghana, whose institutions do not even need JAMB’s nod to admit students from Nigeria.

The registrar said our fixation on cut-off marks or over-dramatisation, as he called it, over the years, had denied many indigent students admissions into universities or the opportunities to study their desired courses, and hoped that this would become a thing of the past, because, as he noted, only poverty or the lack of money could stand between a denied candidate in Nigeria and admission to realise his ambition abroad. In any case, the problem with our education is not in high or low JAMB marks. It is more than that; our education system is fundamentally dysfunctional and not tailored towards skills and practical reality.

While players in the industry rejoiced with the innovations and inclusiveness engendered by the openness and buy-in of all stakeholders, people who do not know how these stakeholders came about their decisions are unusually worried. As JAMB returns to its function as a clearing house, it might also need to do more advocacies to create awareness about its activities.


Here was a forum where all the nation’s educators at the highest echelon were present, and took charge of proceedings before arriving at a consensus, but people who are not remotely connected to this are now taking panadol for other people’s headaches, even though some are parents and as such stakeholders too. By the statute establishing JAMB, its mandate stops at the conduct of exams and the release of results to universities, while each university senate determines the cut-off mark and admission requirements of such institution. Over the years, JAMB had gone beyond this brief and began to admit students on behalf of universities, thereby eroding their independence. These anomalies are addressed by the new arrangements. Besides, since those resolutions were arrived at, no vice chancellor has come out to deny them, and tertiary institutions administrators are not easily intimidated or cowered, which, perhaps, shows the acceptability and popularity of the new regulations, as their senates now fully own and take responsibility for their universities.

Many have argued that the new cut-off mark will further erode confidence in the university system as it will engender the lowering of standards. This is far from the truth or reality. Liberalising admission requirements, in my opinion, is neither synonymous with low standards nor does it detract from our gains in tertiary education when even graduates of universities abroad, who didn’t go through JAMB, are accorded more respect here. JAMB should, however, keep its eyes on the ball to avoid any form of sabotage, either from within or from any of the institutions, and those who may try to cut corners should be punished to serve as deterrence to others.

The arguments over cut-off marks almost took the shine off the other laudable things that JAMB has embarked upon lately. Minister of Education, Adamu Adamu played up some of the efforts of Oloyode at JAMB and reiterated the N5 billion returned to government under him – an amount he said was more than the total that the Board has paid to government since inception. The new lingo at the Board is ‘market place’, which enables institutions to source for candidates from the available pool on the basis of JAMB scores, state, local government and gender. Others are inclusive monitoring, eight-key board solution for those not proficient in computer usage, efforts to ensure visually impaired candidates get admissions, provision of computers for prison inmates, online-real time monitoring of examinations to checkmate fraudsters or would-be exam cheats.

While players in the industry rejoiced with the innovations and inclusiveness engendered by the openness and buy-in of all stakeholders, people who do not know how these stakeholders came about their decisions are unusually worried. As JAMB returns to its function as a clearing house, it might also need to do more advocacies to create awareness about its activities.

foraminifera

zainabsule@yahoo.com, www.zainabokino.blogspot.com