By Niyi
Akinnaso
For the past few years, the Joint Admissions and
Matriculation Board has been in the eye of the storm, facing sharp criticisms
from the constituencies it was set up to serve, namely, candidates seeking
admission to the nation’s tertiary institutions; the parents and guardians of
the candidates; and the tertiary institutions themselves, especially the
universities. As a result, the Board’s cherished motto–Service and Integrity–is
under assault. In this essay, I examine the nature of the problem; X-ray the proposed
solutions; and suggest ways of accomplishing the desired change.
The problem
JAMB has been facing three major problems, among
others. First, the exam body is empowered to perform functions beyond its
capacity. From processing admissions for only about 25,000 candidates, and only
for a few universities, when it was established in 1978, JAMB now processes
admission for well over one million candidates for all tertiary institutions in
the country.
This has led to two major problems: One, many of
JAMB’s functions, including issuing letters of admission, put the Board in
direct conflict with the higher institutions, because they trample on the
authority of the institutions to recruit their own students and set their own
guidelines for admission. Two, JAMB has had to outsource major duties to
technical partners–banks, IT specialists, and other third parties–over which it
has little or no control.
Second, the failure of these partners to deliver,
often due to manpower shortage, power failure, and Internet connectivity
problems, automatically translates to JAMB’s failure. Without a doubt, there is
an infrastructure problem in this country, which makes online transactions
extremely frustrating. With poor mobile telephone networks and epileptic power
supply, it is difficult to get voice calls through not to speak of successfully
completing e-transactions. Yet, JAMB has adopted the online platform for the
entire registration process, leading to candidates’ frustration with banks, cybercafés,
Computer Based Test centres, and JAMB itself.
Third, JAMB suffers from its own administrative
lapses, inadequate planning, and poor judgement, by developing or adopting new
policies, either shortly before a new admission cycle or even in the middle of
the cycle. For example, shortly after his appointment as Registrar only about
eight months ago, Prof. Is-haq Oloyede overhauled the entire registration
procedure, without giving enough room to test-run the new system, while relying
largely on technical partners. The result so far has been disastrous, including
the cancellation of the mock Computer Based Test, hours after candidates had
assembled in various CBT centres throughout the country.
Proposed solutions
There are three possible solutions. One is for
the status quo to remain, that is, for JAMB to continue to conduct business as
usual, tinkering now and then with the process, hoping for better days to come.
JAMB itself seems to prefer this solution, judging by the spirited self-defence
offered by Fabian Benjamin, JAMB’s Head of Public Relations, in response to my
proposal to modify its mandate (see A
requiem for JAMB, The PUNCH, April 18, 2017). Various steps taken by
JAMB, especially under Oloyede, to streamline the procedures of conducting the
Board’s business, were highlighted in the response.
It is clear, however, that none of the reforms
undertaken so far by JAMB has produced satisfactory results, partly because the
scope of its assignment is beyond its capacity and partly because the Board
truly cannot reform itself. The reform that is needed should not be limited to
HOW business is conducted by JAMB. It should start with WHAT business is
conducted by JAMB. That’s why retaining the status quo is no solution at all.
Another solution is much more radical. It
advocates that JAMB should be scrapped altogether. This is the position of many
academics, as advocated repeatedly by the Academic Staff Union of Universities.
It is not just JAMB’s repeated failures at its assignment that motivated this
position. It also derives from resentment of JAMB’s encroachment on university
autonomy, especially the University Senate’s power to admit students into its
programmes.
It will appear that advocates of this proposal
overlook the merit of a centralized examination system, which standardizes the
entrance examinations to all tertiary institutions in the country. It is
assumed that today’s tertiary institutions could conduct their own entrance
examinations at the integrity level that the premier universities conducted the
concessional entrance examinations before the advent of JAMB. Such an
assumption is challenged by endemic corruption in the society and rampant exam
malpractices as well as admission rackets within the tertiary institutions.
Besides, today’s tertiary institutions lack the
resources to mount nationwide exams in order to widen the scope of their
applicants’ pool. The alternative is for prospective candidates to travel from
different parts of the country to a particular institution to take the entrance
exam into that institution. This, of course, will increase the travelling and
safety risks for such candidates. The depressed economy and the precarious
security situation in the country make such an alternative untenable.
This is what opened the door for yet another
solution to JAMB’s problems, which I proposed on this column last week. The
proposal seeks to limit the scope of JAMB’s duties to the conduct of the
Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination, by restructuring the Board as the
equivalent of the College Board in the United States, which conducts the
Scholastic Achievement Test, popularly known as SAT. Prospective university
candidates sit for the SAT exam anywhere in the world and American universities
rely on the test results for admitting students into their programmes. Each
university sets its own cut-off point and decides on which additional
requirements will be needed for different programmes.
The College Board has no say in the admission of
candidates to the universities and does not issue admission letters. Rather,
prospective candidates indicate the universities to which their results should
be forwarded, and the universities compete among themselves for the best
candidates, while the candidates weigh their choices among the various
universities to which they applied, and decide on which university or programme
suits them best.
In this system, a candidate could be admitted to
two or more universities. Readers will recall the recent cases of various
Nigerian teenagers, each of whom was admitted to eight or more top American
universities. Among them was the spectacular case of Serena Omo-Lamai of Dowen
College in Lekki, who was admitted to 13 universities in the United States and
Canada.
The present JAMB policy which limits the
candidates’ choice of university to only one deprives them of their rightful
freedom of choice. Besides, no candidate should be compelled to apply to a
polytechnic or college of education if they do not want to attend such an
institution. JAMB’s argument that a candidate with multiple admissions deprives
others of admission is downright illogical as such a candidate would pay
acceptance fee to only one university. Their slot in the other universities
could then be given to other candidates after the payment deadline.
Even in the recently concluded admission
exercise, vacancies left behind by previously admitted candidates, who chose to
go elsewhere or otherwise did not show up, were filled during the late
admission period by giving their slots to others. What is needed is a good
database that allows for the tracking of admission vacancies as they are filled
or vacated during the open admission window.
Desired change
As indicated last week, JAMB cannot remain as it
is. However, rather than scrap it, JAMB should remain as the central body for
conducting the UTME, while the entire admission process should be left to the
tertiary institutions. In working out the details of the new mandate, the JAMB
Registrar is encouraged to study the operations of the College Board and
similar institutions worldwide. However, in order to achieve the desired
change, the enabling decree which established JAMB in 1978, and its subsequent
amendment in 1989, should be amended by the National Assembly to reflect the
modified mandate.
A
Requiem For JAMB — Niyi Akinnaso
No year has passed over the last five years
without a controversy or two over Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board’s
activities. Each year, the hue and cry over JAMB’s activities gets louder than
that of the previous year. It is probably loudest this year with the bungled
registration process and the delayed cancellation of the mock Computer Based
Test for the 2016/17 matriculation examinations (see JAMB: The plight of 2017
UTME candidates, The Punch, April 11, 2017). The present essay is,
therefore, as much a poem of lamentation over JAMB’s failures as it is a dirge
in anticipation of its clipped wings, if not complete elimination.
There are at least two strong reasons why JAMB
should be scrapped or have its functions drastically modified. First, the
duties assigned to JAMB conflict with the role of the Senate and admission
offices of the nation’s universities. A central core of university autonomy is
the ability of the universities to design their own courses, hire professors to
teach those courses and admit students into the various programmes offered. It
is bad enough to take the admission process away from the universities. It is
even worse to proscribe post-UTME exams, which would have allowed the
institutions to better determine which candidates match specific programmes and
which candidates are frauds.
Over the years, the universities have repeatedly
pointed out JAMB’s interference with university autonomy. The universities are
particularly uncomfortable with the requirement that JAMB and JAMB only could
issue letters of admission to the universities, polytechnics and colleges of
education, thereby reducing these institutions to clearing houses only.
Second, JAMB has never been able to discharge its
primary duty, that is, conduct the matriculation examination and process
admission, without a hitch. Admittedly, it has always been a victim of poor
infrastructure, especially inadequate power supply and poor internet
connectivity. It has been overwhelmed by larger and larger pools of candidates.
JAMB has also been a victim of poor planning, lax administration and lack of
foresight.
Here’s what a modified JAMB mandate should look
like. It will function like the College Board in the United States, which
conducts the popular Scholastic Assessment Test, otherwise known as SAT. True,
students take this test from designated locations all over the world. The fact
is that the College Board does not process admission to any university.
Instead, students apply to various universities themselves, which in turn
receive their SAT scores and use them to process their admission, in addition
to institution- and course-specific requirements.
As a result, a student could be admitted to as
many universities as possible. It is left to the student to choose one. This
often leads to a healthy competition for candidates as the universities
struggle to attract the best candidates.
In the United States, elite universities, for
example, go to the best high schools to woo candidates, sometimes working
through their alumni associations. They also offer scholarships or some form of
financial aid to attract students.
Since every institution in Nigeria has a web site
and an active portal for e-transactions, prospective candidates should be able
to apply online to their institutions of choice. As in the United States, any
student can apply to as many universities, polytechnics and colleges of
education as he or she likes.
This will increase the candidate’s shopping
possibilities for admission and eliminate the problem of processing a change of
institution form on JAMB’s website. Even more importantly, it will eliminate
all the problems that the Board has been experiencing with online registration
as this method will take the UTME registration completely away from it.
Besides, it will encourage the institutions to upgrade their computers and
expand their facilities in order to be able to cope with the number of
applicants who will take their exams in such institutions.
Candidates will still have to contact JAMB during
the application process, but only to create a profile with their picture and
indicate in which institution they wish to take their examination. Students
will, of course, be encouraged to take the exam in the institution nearest to
them. Students should be required to indicate two possible institutions, at
least, to use as exam centres in order to prevent overpopulation in a specific
centre. JAMB will then process the choices and inform the institutions and the
number of candidates to expect. It will also inform the candidates ahead of
time about which specific institution to go for the examination. This will
assist JAMB in determining how many examination questions will go to which
institution.
JAMB’s primary duties will be limited to setting
up the exams; distributing related exam papers to the various institutions;
appointing examiners; grading the exams; and disseminating the results to the
students, via their online profile, and to all the institutions.
Each institution will thereafter decide on its
own cut-off mark for each course and directly admit students into its
programmes. The anxious wait on the part of the candidates between a
congratulatory message from an institution and the issuance of admission
letters by JAMB will be eliminated.
Events within the past year also show that it is
critical for the Federal Ministry of Education to be properly educated about
university autonomy and the functions of each organ of the university. Much too
often, ministers give provocative orders to JAMB without recourse to the
universities. Unfortunately, the National Universities Commission, which should
champion the course of the universities either colludes with the ministry or
sits on the fence.
A point of historical detail often missed by
government officials today is the military root of many education policies
crafted at a time when there were much fewer universities and when state
universities had not even come on board. That is why the question is often
raised today as to the propriety of a federal ministry of education dictating
to private universities and polytechnics about admission into such institutions
or of JAMB processing admission into private universities.
Today, JAMB is dealing with a larger number of universities and a teeming population of students, without the necessary infrastructure and adequate manpower to cope. Nothing will be lost if some of those duties are given back to the institutions from which they were snatched by military fiat. Rather, JAMB will be relieved of a burden it couldn’t carry, while students will be weaned from unnecessary hassle and stress. Finally, the universities and other higher institutions will be happy as one of their primary functions will be restored.
