The JAMB cut-off marks

THE cut-off marks for the 2017/2018 admission into tertiary institutions recently announced by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) are indicative of a lack of will to address the rot that has gnawed deep into the nation’s education system.

While announcing the marks, JAMB Registrar, Professor Ishaq Oloyede, stated that the cut-off for candidates seeking admission into colleges of education, polytechnics and other non-degree-awarding institutions would be 100, while it would be 120 for university candidates.

Although the JAMB Registrar, in his attempt to justify the decision reached by the Board and university vice chancellors, said hiking the cut off marks usually results in the country losing many candidates to mushroom universities outside the country, be that as it may, there are major issues with the cut-off marks.

First, if we are concerned about the failing, falling and faltering standard of our education, we should eschew anything that would make it worse than it is currently. How can we contemplate offering admission to those who failed to pass the entrance examination into universities? How can those who got 120 out of 400 be considered for admission into universities? Where on earth is a 30 per cent score considered a good enough mark? If we want our graduates to compete favourably with their peers elsewhere are we not supposed to raise the bar and ensure that only the fittest are admitted into our universities. The truth which we have failed to face as a nation is that university education, as desirable as it is, is not, and cannot be, for everyone. Our responsibility as a nation is to help those who do not possess the aptitude for university education to transit unabashedly to areas where their best will manifest, not just for their own good but for the good of the nation as a whole. Forcing everyone to pursue university education when it is obvious that they lack the capacity is not in the overall interest of the nation.

It is my considered opinion that the lowering of the cut-off point is a scheme to pave way for some candidates with below the bar scores to gain admission into universities at the expense of those with high scores.

Then, I seriously suspect that the low cut-off mark is a ploy to mop up funds, especially by some universities. I am aware that a number of universities see the examination as an opportunity to shore up the shortfall in their internally generated revenue. Already, institutions have been announcing the dates for their Post-UTME with candidates expected to pay for the examinations, even after paying for the UTME. The lower the cut-off mark is, the higher the turnout of candidates for the examination will be and the more financially rewarding it is for the institution. With lowered cut-off point, the hope of the candidates is raised; they are optimistic of doing well in the other examination so as to secure admission. But the story ends up the same way for many of them; they do not do well in the examination and are denied admission. Even in the very rare cases that they do well in Post-UTME, they are done in by their dismal performance in the UTME with the effect that they are denied admission and their frustration climbs up.

Again, with the cut-off mark at 120, the tendency is for the universities to admit students in excess of their carrying capacities and create a problem of inadequate infrastructure for students. When intakes are in excess of carrying capacity, facilities are overstretched and students are short-changed.  I am told of a private university that admits more students than it can effectively cope with and has devised a means of offloading them year after year until it gets to the number that it can present to the National Universities Commission. So, head or tail, the candidates lose. Year after year, there is a growing pile of young people either frustrated through admission denial or shipped out of the university after admission for their inability to cope.

Methinks that rather than herding every secondary school certificate holder into the university, it will pay us better as a nation to make other institutions attractive so that those who attend such will not see themselves as second class citizens and will not also be treated as such by the society. Until we do that, we will yearly breed brood of disenchanted and frustrated individuals who are angry with their fatherland and will not stop at anything to express their angst.