Still on the musings over post-UTME proscription

The emotional and in some cases irrational outpourings by several groups and individuals in the past weeks that have greeted the proscription of the test components of post-Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (post-UTME) exercises as conducted by universities and other tertiary institutions have only pointed to two issues: A lack of understanding of the technicalities of standardised tests as a key basis for setting minimum standards for determining eligibility for admission into higher institutions of learning; and the misunderstanding of the role of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) as provided for it by the law setting up the body in the first place. One particular reaction in The Guardian of Sunday, July 17, seemed to have confessed it all with the caption, “New JAMB Admission Template: Conflicting, Confusing Orders from Education Ministry.”

Nine areas in the debate illustrating the lack of understanding and misrepresentations of fundamental issues raised in the discussions are examined herewith.

1.The 1989 law setting up JAMB clearly stipulates inter-alia that as a public examination body, it shall amongst other functions operate its mandate as follows:

(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactment, the Board shall be responsible for –
(a) the general control of the conduct of matriculation examinations for admissions into all universities, polytechnics (by whatever name called) and colleges of education (by whatever name called) in Nigeria;
(b) the appointment of examiners, moderators, invigila¬tors, members of subject panels and committees and other persons with respect to matriculation examina¬tions and any other matter incidental thereto or connected therewith;
(c) the placement of suitable qualified candidates in the tertiary institutions having taken into account-
(i)the vacancies available in each tertiary institution,
(ii) the guidelines approved for each tertiary institution by its proprietor or other competent authority,
(iii) the preferences expressed or otherwise indi¬cated by candidates for certain tertiary institutions and courses, and
(iv) such other matters as the board may be directed by the Minister to consider, or the Board itself may consider appropriate in the circumstances;
(d) the collection and dissemination of information on all matters relating to admissions into tertiary institu¬tions or to any other matter relevant to the discharge of the functions of the Board under this Act; and
(e) the carrying out of such other activities as are neces¬sary or expedient for the full discharge of all or any of the functions conferred on it under or pursuant to this Act.

(ii) For the avoidance of doubt, the board shall be re¬sponsible for determining matriculation requirements and conducting examinations leading to undergraduate admis¬sions and also for admissions to National Diploma and the Nigerian Certificate in Education (NCE) courses, but shall not be responsible for examinations or any other selective process for postgraduate courses and any other courses offered by the tertiary institutions.

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the minister may give the board directives of a general character or relating generally to particular matters with regard to the exercise by the board of its functions under this Act and it shall be the duty of the board to comply with such directives.

These provisions basically imply that in the principles and in the spirit of the Law, JAMB is mandated to conduct entrance examinations for standards setting for admission into academic and professional programmes offered in Nigerian universities; coordinate, harmonise and regularise such admissions; and ensure the academic quality of applicants seeking admission into Nigerian tertiary institutions. The extant law also empowers the Honourable Minister for Education (HME) to give directives “… of a general character or relating generally to particular matters with regard to the exercise by the board of its functions.” In discharging these mandates, the law empowers JAMB to conduct technically efficient tests for determining quality of applicants for admission. Starting first with the Universities Matriculation Examination (UME), JAMB was later to advance the testing system to become UTME, in addition to processing and coordination of the Direct Entry (DE) applications for admission. By the law, therefore, JAMB is an educational outfit meant to ensure examination technical factors (tests development; test items banking; tests administration, test items efficiency and psychometric properties) for preserving the validity, reliability and usability of the examinations to be conducted. It is such technicalities of public examinations that have been taken for granted that led to misunderstandings which brought about the introduction of the Post UTME.

The reality from Educational Psychology point of view is that the exams which teachers and lecturers set and administer to students after teaching them courses of instruction do not have the established and verifiable technical qualities expected of standardized tests as developed and administered by public examination bodies set up to professionally organize examinations for determining the required academic and aptitude qualities of candidates examined. This is what fundamentally makes post-UTME Tests as administered by tertiary institutions different from the UTME organised by JAMB. The truth is that the universities and other tertiary institutions do not possess precisely the specifically technical capacities for standardized testing, and which is why contrary to the calls for the proscription of JAMB, entrance examinations by each institution on its own would only lead to compromises of academic quality, validity and reliability of expected competencies by candidates seeking admission. Indeed, the technical essence of JAMB for conducting UTME and coordinating admissions into Nigerian tertiary institutions is more apt now than when the body was first set up, owing to the free fall of standards and watered down quality of basic and secondary education in Nigeria.

A second issue that has been very misunderstood in the ongoing debate over the desirability or otherwise of the post-UTME proscription is that of academic performance capacities of candidates offered admission through JAMB. It is often most erroneously assumed by many, particularly the Universities that it is such students offered admission on the basis of their UTME scores who are the most academically incompetent during the undergraduate studies. This assumption is erroneous because mass failure as a phenomenon at all levels of Nigeria’s educational institutions is the largely the output of falling standards occasioned by resource constrained schools, including the tertiary institutions themselves. JAMB’s mandate is to test the academic competence of candidates who apply for admission in terms of the strength of their academic learning achievements and aptitudes.

Candidates with high JAMB scores and who end up with poor performance in the university programmes into which admission is offered are not just only a product of the poor quality of education received from below the tertiary level, but also products of weak or compromised “O” Level Examinations taken and considered as one of the pre-admission criteria as well as the widespread examination malpractices afflicting examination bodies (including JAMB itself and the universities). The issue of poor performance by candidates after admission into any university programmes is, therefore, not to be blamed on the quality of UTME as such. Neither does the situation justify any form of written tests as part of the post-UTME screening exercise as it is also not insulated from the factors of poor educational standards and the affliction of malpractices. In any case, all universities reserve the right to withdraw students who do not attain specified academic performance standards (i.e. CGPA of 1.5) after a number of semesters. And most, if not all tertiary institutions are known to withdraw such students with weak performance indices throughout their academic career. I think what is needed is to fashion out a more robust collaboration between the tertiary institutions and JAMB for a more hitch-free UTME exercise, rather than going for the jugular of JAMB.

3. It is also erroneous to assume that the post-UTME testing eliminates academically incompetent candidates with presumably high scores from the UTME. Foremost, there is yet to be any incontrovertible empirical evidence to prove the assumption. One or even few cases of candidates with UTME score as high as 300, yet failing the Post-UTME Tests do not empirically justify the resort to further use of tests that had not been developed by any known standards and which are so subjective that we cannot vouch for their validity and reliability. Also, the issue is more of the psycho-educational technical qualities of two tests set by different systems (UTME with demonstrable psychometric properties and Post-UTME Tests with no such established psychometric properties). The basis for comparison, therefore, neither exists, nor is there a basis for adjudging the Post-UTME as capable of determining the efficacy of academic competency of students more than the UTME. In any case, as one commentator tried to explain the skepticism over the proscription of Post-UTME, the Exercise was originally designed to ascertain among other university education potential competence factors, the psycho-personality mien; authenticity or otherwise of candidates’ presumed entry qualifications; as well as the expressive and written skills of candidates. The problem is that over the years, the Post-UTME Exercises in many universities became more of exclusively testing the presumed “writing and oral expressive skills” of candidates, usually on the basis of the subjective whims and caprices of respective institutions. The Exercises have also been marred by allegations of malpractices, misconducts and compromises, which JAMB is been accused of.

Contrary to the widespread belief (see The Guardian of 22nd July 2016 for example) that JAMB sets the criteria for admission for universities and other tertiary institutions, the practice is that all heads of institutions (and not JAMB) collectively determine the UTME cut-off marks after JAMB would have presented the general performance of candidates during a particular year’s exercise. This usually takes place during the annual policy meeting of JAMB under the chairmanship of the Honourable Minister of Education. In fact, it was during the 2016 Policy Meeting, attended by heads or representatives of tertiary institutions that the collective decision to peg the cut off mark for all institutions at 180 was taken and announced by the HME. At the Consultative Meeting, the HME put the question to Vice Chancellors, Rectors and Provosts to find out if they were satisfied with the conduct of JAMB in administering the UTME, and to which there was a resounding affirmation.

The HME then directly that there was then no need for a second examination or test (i.e. the post-UTME) for tertiary institutions to select their prospective candidates. How come as The Guardian put it, the 180 cut off mark for all tertiary institutions was JAMB’s admission criteria? In any case, the 180 cut-off mark was a minimum, and not as The Guardian put it, “flat cut-off mark of 180 by JAMB…” If as suggested, JAMB should release results and allow institutions to go and set their cut-off marks without a minimum, then as one commentator postulated, there is no doubt that chaos will follow. Colleges of education, polytechnics, monotechnics and even some universities (particularly the private ones) would go UTME marks as low as 100 out of 400 as their entry points, much lower than the 140/160 they used to angle for during policy meetings, year after year before 2016. They would adopt ridiculous UTME scores just to attract patronage. When this happens, this would be the “aberration,” as teacher training institutions as well as the polytechnics, which produce the much needed teachers and technicians required to facilitate national development will only be admitting the most academically incompetent candidates. Many commentators indeed do not seem to reckon with or probably simply choose to ignore the fact that as minimum cut-off mark agreed upon collectively in the spirit of respect for institutional autonomy, universities in particular end up setting further, their respective cut-off marks above the 180 for different courses in addition to other criteria.

It is not a hidden fact that University of Ibadan does not admit any candidate with less than 220 for all courses and only recognizes one sitting in WAEC as additional admission criteria. No University also admits candidates with less than 240 for medical sciences. And with regards to the “O” Level Grades and UTME Score Points System as illustrated by the Registrar of JAMB, Prof. Dibu Ojerinde, the point has since been made that it was an example of how some universities conduct their post-UTME Screening without having subject candidates to a third or even fourth round of tests in the name of post-UTME. Therefore, the Point System was not made compulsory for any institutions. Obviously, JAMB simply conducts the stipulated entrance exams for tertiary institutions to determine a minimum cut-off mark for any given year as a measure of safeguarding the academic standards and quality, and not for the purpose of imposing “… very low cut-off marks for entrance into Nigerian universities” and “insensible” standards as The Guardian Editorial in reference will want us to believe.

On the issue of JAMB perpetrating a monopoly for admission into tertiary institutions, it is surprising that even the unions seem to perceive it wrongly. Again, as The Guardian Editorial puts it, “In the United States and UK, there is the scholastic aptitude test (SAT) and A/Levels, that some universities require a certain grade as precondition for admission.” If The Guardian knows this and still says that in Nigeria, “the universities should be allowed to brand their admission the way they want,” it is either that there is a knowledge lacuna about what the UTME as our own version of scholastic aptitude test and JAMB’s direct entry procedures are all about, or there is a case of deliberately being economical with the truth. SAT, Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFEL) and the Test of English as a Second Language (TESEL), which most universities abroad (even some non-native English countries) require as part of their criteria for admission are set and administered (even online) by specialised examination bodies like JAMB. The JAMB/UTME results from which Nigerian tertiary institutions are expected to set their standards and criteria for admission are, therefore, only in line with international best practices.

For me, the tertiary institutions had rather support JAMB to continue to perfect its development and conduct of the UTME and direct entry procedures to advance the body to consolidate on its gains in terms of international recognition by foreign universities rather than try to frustrate the body. Perhaps, many do not know that the JAMB UTME is now conducted in foreign countries in Africa and even in the UK for admission into Nigerian universities. When we lament poor ranking of Nigerian universities among world universities, one wonders if a stronger examination body for validly and reliably determining standards of candidates seeking admission and even graduating students is not one of the means of improving on the international ranking of our tertiary institutions. Bottom line is that the UTME results just determine candidates’ academic competencies in selected subjects for universities for set their collective cut-off marks, and not as a monopoly of the admission criteria by the body.

It is surprising that some are even canvassing for a return to the days when only about five universities existed in the country and conducted their respective entrance examinations for much less number of candidates. Those canvassing the return to institutional autonomy over admissions don’t seem to know that JAMB was partly a recommendation arising for the change of the educational policy which abrogated the Higher School Certificate (HSC), making senior secondary leavers eligible for admission as well as the envisaged proliferation of universities and tertiary institutions meant to meet the increasing number of candidates seeking for university admission.

The recommendation was by the then registrars of universities who at the time were the ones almost solely charged with the responsibility of processing candidates’ admissions in their respective institutions. The Guardian Editorial again suggests going back to the Advanced Level System “… in which higher school certificate education of two or more years prepare all students for university” as what the paper considers “… a sensible way of setting standards.” The suggestion seems to have forgotten two major issues: i) The standard and quality of Education in Nigeria at all levels has so depreciated that the same HSC as we had them in those years can hardly be re-enacted again; and ii) The universities and other tertiary institutions have since taken on the HSC or Advanced Level Education through the basic studies, foundation programmes, preliminary studies, diploma programmes, etc. all of which they use to and “re-prepare” for admission, candidates seeking for university admission. Most of the universities, indeed, admit students into these preparatory programmes on the basis of the same “O” level requirements for undergraduate admission. Even when the candidates from these programmes are admitted into the universities through JAMB direct entry procedures, it has not in reality helped the quality of graduates of Nigerian universities. The situation cannot be blamed on JAMB or remedied through post-UTME.

Certainly, post-UTME testing or examination (which has been proscribed) is not the same as post-UTME screening which the tertiary institutions have not been denied. While testing as a component of post-UTME amounts to subjecting candidates to additional testing (in addition to tests they had earlier gone through to obtain their “O” levels and UTME scores), the screening aspect of Post-UTME limits the exercise to verifying and authenticating the “O” levels and UTME results of candidates from source, or determining the quality of scores and grades of these pre-admission requirements with a view to ensuring that the presumably best candidates are selected for admission. When the incumbent JAMB Registrar demonstrated how pre-admission requirement results can be screened and graded on point basis by institutions, it was not like an imposition on any university or any tertiary institutions by way of eroding their respective autonomies, but to illustrate how the post-UTME exercise can be restricted to screening. Yet even the polytechnics, monotechnics and colleges of education have a window of opportunity to make use of the points system to attract candidates who could be as good as those who make the universities their most preferred choices.

I can hardly, therefore, understand the basis for which the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) is spoiling for a strike over the proscription of the post-UTME. What needs to be understood is that candidates need not be subjected to another psychological rigour of examination (after two or three “O” level examinations in addition to UTME) in order to determine their eligibility for admission. When foreign universities set criteria for admission on the basis of scores in SAT, TOEFEL, TESEL, or the Advanced Level GCE Grades, which are not directly set by the universities themselves, they do not conduct any extra examinations like the post-UTME to determine eligibility for admission. The post-UTME was proscribed by HME on two principles: (i) Its tendencies and vulnerability for direct and indirect exploitation of particularly poor candidates and their parents; and (ii) the autonomy which universities and other tertiary institutions have to “weed” out poor students who cannot cope academically after the minimum of two semesters based on examinations of the respective institutions.

Deplorable standard of standard of education (especially at the tertiary and university levels) blamable on JAMB? Many commentators in the ongoing debate on post-UTME proscription suggest in the affirmative. A notable commentator who sought to explain how post-UTME was justified at inception by the need to test the expressive written and oral academic abilities of candidates (which the UTME does not do as the tests are all of the objective type) probably forgot that particularly the expressive written skills of candidates had already been tested when they all sat for the “O” level examinations. If any institution chooses to conduct oral expressive interviews and personality appearance appraisal of candidates as post-UTME, I do not think the present proscription prohibits that. Some institutions like the Federal University Agriculture, Abeokuta (FUNAB), and the Afe Babalola University (for which one of the proponents of the retention of post-UTME) is sole proprietor) have the oral, expressive and personality appearance appraisal components in their post-UTME exercises.

What the proscription only requires them to do now is to drop the written expressive aspect. Deplorable standards and poor quality of education in Nigeria at all levels lies in the systemic and structural defects needing to be addressed by government, the institutions, stakeholders (including unions and parents) and the larger society as a whole. Calling for the scrapping of JAMB or blaming JAMB for the poor state of education will not address the enormous challenges involved. It is better to stop the blame game about post-UTME and concentrate on the steps or policy measures required for addressing the falling standards of education and strengthening the examination bodies to perform their functions creditably.

Not even past registrars of JAMB will deny the numerous challenges the examination body had from inception had to contend with. From time to time, measures were taken to keep addressing those challenges in a society where there has been an institutionalising of evolving new ways of perpetrating impunity (corruption, manipulations, malpractices, etc.). None of the former registrars was as innovative as the present one with the deployment of ICT through CBT to curb malpractices. JAMB as set up by law has the responsibility of determining academic competencies of candidates for university and tertiary institutions admission. It is up to the respective institutions to determine the use of UTME cut-off marks as they agree among themselves as minimum standards to determine any additional criteria for admission without having to subject candidates to additional examinations. JAMB already provides a reasonable basis for setting admission standards for a fledgling tertiary education system in Nigeria. If there are issues with the conduct of UTME by JAMB, constructive engagement by universities and tertiary institutions with the JAMB and even other examination bodies is the way forward.

Prof. Ibrahim A. Kolo is former vice chancellor, Niger State government-owned IBB University, Lapai.