No, the Federal Government was not right to have scrapped the post-UTME. This decision infringes on the autonomy of the universities to admit credible candidates. The universities used the post-UTME as a quality control mechanism to ascertain whether the admission seekers were really the ones that sat for the UTME or others sat for them. This is why it is important that the universities have internal admission procedures to admit qualified students. The scrapping of the post-UTME has denied the universities the power to enforce their quality control measures; it is very unfortunate that the Federal Government is not respecting the autonomy of the universities. Even the vice-chancellors do not enjoy a secure tenure of office. ? ?Prof. Dauda Saleh
The Federal Government?s decision to scrap the post-UTME was wrong. It was not the right decision. I have not seen the statement on the scrapping of the post-UTME. I was part of those that pushed for the introduction of the post-UTME. Our reasons for introducing it have been justified by the output of the admission seekers and the usual lack of correlation between their JAMB scores and their post-UTME scores. JAMB has said many times that its question papers do not leak but we discovered that in some way or the other, there are usually a manipulation of the scores. I think what the Federal Government should have proposed was that the universities should modify their style of conducting the post-UTME. I have not spoken with the minister but what I think he should do is to hold a meeting with the authorities of the universities so that we can review the mode of administering the post-UTME in a way that we do not have to duplicate the efforts of JAMB.
Rather than make the admission seekers sit for biology, physics or other examinations as post-UTME, we could introduce aptitude tests. Since JAMB has prequalified them, we can introduce this. In summary, I don?t think it should be scrapped. It can be reviewed; we still have the opportunity. The universities should have the final authority. ? ?Prof. Oye Ibidapo-Obe
Many years ago, there was nothing like JAMB. Yet, the universities were able to admit qualified candidates. To me, I will say a situation where a university oversees the admission process is the best. There are so many problems associated with JAMB these days. We all know this; if an individual scores 280 in the UTME and he is not able to pass the schools? examinations, if the university say they don?t want to admit such a candidate, there is nothing wrong about that. I understand the universities use the post-UTME as a money-making venture. A situation where admission seekers are made to part with money for the UTME and post-UTME is not good enough. But if the universities can purge themselves, if they don?t turn it to money-making ventures, then it will better. To me, the best decision is for the universities to manage the admission process. ? ?Prof. Femi Adegbulu
It is certainly a very wrong decision. The federalism we practise in this country is a unitary system. JAMB must go. It must be scrapped. The JAMB system is a usurpation of the powers of the universities. Why should JAMB conduct examinations for private universities? JAMB has only one professor as the only academic employee. So, if the Osun State University has the powers to conduct matriculation, or degree examinations; if the government deems it fit for the universities to conduct examinations for postgraduate degrees, why can?t the universities retain the right to conduct examinations for the admission seekers? For instance, I am a professor of history. To admit a student for history, how can you use objective questions to determine whether such a candidate is qualified to be admitted?
I mean, the best way is to administer essay questions; let the candidate write his family history. The ability to write, the power of language are important to study history. If you want to study biology and you are asking the universities to admit candidates based on objective questions, this is ridiculous. Why give such a student objective questions that a primary six pupil, who is ICT literacy, can pass. The standard of JAMB is too low for the universities. ICT literary is not enough. How can we teach languages by administering objective questions; it is not done, JAMB has created a behemoth, it is funded by the Federal Government and it has a big budget. The same JAMB charges student to sit for its examinations. The universities also charge fees. Let this stop. Let the autonomy return to the universities. There was no JAMB until 1978. I can say I am a product of the first JAMB examination but 40 years after, it has not lived up to expectations. JAMB has only succeeded in usurping the powers of the universities. The power rests squarely on the senate of the universities; there is no need for an ombudsman or the unnecessary bureaucracy created by JAMB. ? ?Prof. Siyan Oyeweso
What JAMB has done is excellent but it is not saying that universities cannot screen candidates. For example, JAMB has sent 10,000 prospective candidates to us but we need to screen their certificates.
Generating IGR should not be our priority, even though we need money. We need to get good students to our universities. We will screen them and their certificates before admitting them.- ?Prof. Samuel Bandele
There is no simple answer to it. I don?t know what the Federal Government considered before making the decision. Due to the many anomalies in the JAMB system, the universities felt that they needed to put a system in place to check the excesses of the UTME. The problem we have in this country is that, although some things are done with good intentions, they are usually abused before long. But I honestly think that the Federal Government should have consulted with the authorities of the universities. I can?t really say the Federal Government is right or not. The problem with Nigeria is that we think rightly, initiate something but at the end, we derail from the noble plans.- ?Prof. Kolawole Ogundowole