Some many years back before post JAMB, securing
admission into higher institutions, universities to be precise, was very
difficult for the brainy owing to high level of admission malpractices,
directly or indirectly by the school bodies. The advent of POST JAMB (
Now post UTME) put an end or perhaps a very big check on this
negativity.
I, personally, happen to be one of the many that faced these challenges and also part of the lucky ones that reaped the good fruit of post UTME. Without much ado, I can categorically say that post UTME is one of the best quality assurance mechanism for most institutions.
Some beautiful quotes in line with this article:
"If universities will not become breeding grounds for ill-baked, sophomoric and dilettantish graduates, then, post UME test must remain to be part of our admission process criteria."....anonymous
"To avoid the abuse of university education in the country, JAMB and Post-JAMB should work together to compliment each other so that the optimal output will be achieved in our Universities. While Post-JAMB will continue to benefit from JAMB, the fear of passing Post-JAMB screening test will reduce the desire to bribe JAMB staff to cheat hence passing JAMB is no more the only criteria to gain admission into university in the country but a mere qualification to face Post-JAMB screening test which does not give room for cheating.''..... Hundu William Terseer
In highlights, here my five reasons why post UTME should not be scrapped:
1. It check-mates 'runs'....tell me you don't know the meaning of 'runs'
2. It invites in more transparency to institutions enrolment processes.
3. Students knowing that two screening processes await them, they tend to tighten their belts as regards preparation.
4. It creates a major resistance to students who exceedingly passed jamb via malpractices.
5. Various institutions can boast of good quality of students. This is true as post UTME has improved the academic standard of undergraduate students owing to their good academic performances.
More Cushion:
According to an educational research carried out by Hundu William Terseer,
" The foregoing discussion has shown that Post-JAMB is more effective than JAMB as selection test for university admission. However, lessons have to be learnt from the finding. The effectiveness of Post-JAMB may not be unconnected with the fact that the screening test is conducted for students who have already taken JAMB examinations. This implies that Post-JAMB on its own may not be able to achieve huge success unless JAMB comes in to trim down the large population opting for University Admission. JAMB can continue as a primary screening exercise for university admission while Post-JAMB will continue to be the final screening exercise.
TWO SYSTEMS OF ENROLLMENT
The retaining of the two systems of enrollment is vital and cost effective if education is to be taken as serious business in the country. This can be considered in two ways. First, JAMB plays the role of ‘filtering’ which reduces the population students that would have become an obstacle to the smooth conduct of Post-JAMB test, secondary, Students access information about University admission from JAMB, such information will be difficult to access is leave into the hand of individual universities.
The implication from the findings of this study is that, poor academic performance of undergraduate students is strongly related to the enrollment process through which they gain admission. The fact still remains that irrespective of poor infrastructure in our universities, if qualified students are admitted they will at least earn a class of degree higher than a third class and pass degree. This has been proved to be true from this research work. The federal government should therefore have a rethink on University Entrance Examinations if the desired manpower is to be achieved for economic development and nation building.
Although Post-JAMB screening exercise might not be the best option to solve JAMB problem in a democratic setting, it is however the most effective tool to rescue to educational system in the country. The problem is diverse; JAMB seems to be the cause of the dilemma it found itself. JAMB has for long taken its JAMB for granted. JAMB engages in collecting money from students who do not have minimum qualification for university education, only to allow them write an examination they are not qualified for, this often results to unprecedented number of student seating for the examination such that JAMB cannot effectively control, this has resulted to proliferation of JAMB centres that does not look like centres for conducting examination for university entrance.
Secondly the remunerations JAMB pays to her adhoc staff and the calibre of staff JAMB recruits these days is overwhelming. Even to this present day, JAMB pay as low as N2000.00 for conduct of an examination that candidates are willing to pay over 10,000 for ‘assistance’. Perhaps, what interest JAMB adhoc staff is not the JAMB money but money they will collect from candidates for ‘assistance’?
The credibility of Post-JAMB is however commendable. In the first place, the calibre of staff conducting the Post-JAMB screening are usually made of senior staff that cannot easily be bought over for a peanut and there is less contact between the candidate and those conducting the examination. Again must of the Universities including Federal University of Technology, Yola, have adapted the use of on-line test where students interact with computer to approach question This also reduces the involvement of human error in the screening test.
To avoid the abuse of university education in the country, JAMB and Post-JAMB should work together to complimentary each other so that the optimal output will be achieved in our Universities. While Post-JAMB will continue to benefit from JAMB, the fear of passing Post-JAMB screening test will reduce the desire to bribe JAMB staff to cheat hence passing JAMB is no more the only criteria to gain admission into university in the country but a mere qualification to face Post-JAMB screening test which does not give room for cheating.''
I, personally, happen to be one of the many that faced these challenges and also part of the lucky ones that reaped the good fruit of post UTME. Without much ado, I can categorically say that post UTME is one of the best quality assurance mechanism for most institutions.
Some beautiful quotes in line with this article:
"If universities will not become breeding grounds for ill-baked, sophomoric and dilettantish graduates, then, post UME test must remain to be part of our admission process criteria."....anonymous
"To avoid the abuse of university education in the country, JAMB and Post-JAMB should work together to compliment each other so that the optimal output will be achieved in our Universities. While Post-JAMB will continue to benefit from JAMB, the fear of passing Post-JAMB screening test will reduce the desire to bribe JAMB staff to cheat hence passing JAMB is no more the only criteria to gain admission into university in the country but a mere qualification to face Post-JAMB screening test which does not give room for cheating.''..... Hundu William Terseer
In highlights, here my five reasons why post UTME should not be scrapped:
1. It check-mates 'runs'....tell me you don't know the meaning of 'runs'
2. It invites in more transparency to institutions enrolment processes.
3. Students knowing that two screening processes await them, they tend to tighten their belts as regards preparation.
4. It creates a major resistance to students who exceedingly passed jamb via malpractices.
5. Various institutions can boast of good quality of students. This is true as post UTME has improved the academic standard of undergraduate students owing to their good academic performances.
More Cushion:
According to an educational research carried out by Hundu William Terseer,
" The foregoing discussion has shown that Post-JAMB is more effective than JAMB as selection test for university admission. However, lessons have to be learnt from the finding. The effectiveness of Post-JAMB may not be unconnected with the fact that the screening test is conducted for students who have already taken JAMB examinations. This implies that Post-JAMB on its own may not be able to achieve huge success unless JAMB comes in to trim down the large population opting for University Admission. JAMB can continue as a primary screening exercise for university admission while Post-JAMB will continue to be the final screening exercise.
TWO SYSTEMS OF ENROLLMENT
The retaining of the two systems of enrollment is vital and cost effective if education is to be taken as serious business in the country. This can be considered in two ways. First, JAMB plays the role of ‘filtering’ which reduces the population students that would have become an obstacle to the smooth conduct of Post-JAMB test, secondary, Students access information about University admission from JAMB, such information will be difficult to access is leave into the hand of individual universities.
The implication from the findings of this study is that, poor academic performance of undergraduate students is strongly related to the enrollment process through which they gain admission. The fact still remains that irrespective of poor infrastructure in our universities, if qualified students are admitted they will at least earn a class of degree higher than a third class and pass degree. This has been proved to be true from this research work. The federal government should therefore have a rethink on University Entrance Examinations if the desired manpower is to be achieved for economic development and nation building.
Although Post-JAMB screening exercise might not be the best option to solve JAMB problem in a democratic setting, it is however the most effective tool to rescue to educational system in the country. The problem is diverse; JAMB seems to be the cause of the dilemma it found itself. JAMB has for long taken its JAMB for granted. JAMB engages in collecting money from students who do not have minimum qualification for university education, only to allow them write an examination they are not qualified for, this often results to unprecedented number of student seating for the examination such that JAMB cannot effectively control, this has resulted to proliferation of JAMB centres that does not look like centres for conducting examination for university entrance.
Secondly the remunerations JAMB pays to her adhoc staff and the calibre of staff JAMB recruits these days is overwhelming. Even to this present day, JAMB pay as low as N2000.00 for conduct of an examination that candidates are willing to pay over 10,000 for ‘assistance’. Perhaps, what interest JAMB adhoc staff is not the JAMB money but money they will collect from candidates for ‘assistance’?
The credibility of Post-JAMB is however commendable. In the first place, the calibre of staff conducting the Post-JAMB screening are usually made of senior staff that cannot easily be bought over for a peanut and there is less contact between the candidate and those conducting the examination. Again must of the Universities including Federal University of Technology, Yola, have adapted the use of on-line test where students interact with computer to approach question This also reduces the involvement of human error in the screening test.
To avoid the abuse of university education in the country, JAMB and Post-JAMB should work together to complimentary each other so that the optimal output will be achieved in our Universities. While Post-JAMB will continue to benefit from JAMB, the fear of passing Post-JAMB screening test will reduce the desire to bribe JAMB staff to cheat hence passing JAMB is no more the only criteria to gain admission into university in the country but a mere qualification to face Post-JAMB screening test which does not give room for cheating.''
No comments:
Post a Comment