By Douglas Anele

SUCH a technocrat, with a track record of good performance in his or her chosen field, of course, should be supported by deputy vice-chancellors who are thoroughbred academics.

There are several of such individuals in the country whose wealth of experience can be mined to the benefit of the universities. In a nutshell, then, I suggest that ASUU must be more involved in the selection of the most suitable people to run our universities, and propose bold and innovative ideas on how to develop the critical mass of human capital needed to meet the challenges of a fast-changing world.

It should not acquiesce to the current domination of ethnicity in the appointment of principle officers of the various institutions. On the question of how to get more funds to run the universities and provide reasonable welfare package for lecturers, Ayo Banjo, a retired professor and former vice-chancellor of the University of Ibadan, was right in suggesting that part of the problem is that lecturers move from place to place seeking for individual consultancy jobs rather than working synergetically under the umbrella of the consultancy units of their various institutions.

Banjo suggests, and I agree, that better funding would accrue to the universities if lecturers present a united front in sourcing for consultancy services outside the system. Virtually all universities have consultancy outfits. But in some of these establishments, due to parochial considerations, square pegs are put in round holes. ASUU can see to it that lecturers work together to make the interface between the “town and gown” more financially rewarding to the universities and to the lecturers too.

In the attempt to raise more funds, many universities are running academic programmes for which they have neither the required number of competent academic staff nor the facilities.

Certainly, there is a lot of pressure on existing universities to admit more students in order to absorb the ever-increasing number of people who desire university education. In the satellite campuses, for example, “cash and carry” has become endemic, because a lot of those teaching there are “academic traders” motivated mainly by pecuniary considerations. Without the participation of ASUU members, these low quality programmes cannot exist.

I think it is time ASUU took a principled stance against the proliferation of half–baked academic programmes by demanding that its members should not participate in them, irrespective of the financial benefits to the universities and lecturers.

It is better for our universities to produce a small number of graduates with top class quality than to produce a large number of mediocre degree holders.

On the question of strikes, ASUU should allow the system to run uninterruptedly for ten years so that some degree of stability can be achieved. A moratorium on strike for the next decade, except in cases of grave and obvious assault on the universities, such as arbitrary sack or maltreatment of academics, will enable the universities to recover from some of the negative effects of previous strikes.

Additionally, rather than depend on stoppage of teaching to get what we want, as researchers we should think out of the box, so to speak, in order to chart a new course in ASUU-government relations. As I said earlier, the academic union should discourage lecturers from creating the impression that they are always eager to “come and eat” with politicians and military dictators.

Secondly, the union needs to reach out to, or lobby, those who truly have the ears and hearts of the ultimate decision makers in matters relating to funding of education. For instance, it is relatively easy for ASUU to discover whether a sitting president takes the advice of his spouse very seriously. If that is so, then ASUU can, covertly, enlist the help of respected senior female academics, including those that have retired, to convince the president’s wife so that she can make her husband appreciate ASUU’s position better.

I am sure some of my colleagues will rashly scoff at my proposal.

Still, I am convinced that personal informal interventions such as the one I just recommended can be effective in achieving better results during disagreements and negotiations. Consequently, I suggest ASUU should give it a try and see what happens.

There are several other issues ASUU should focus on to enhance academic work in the universities. One of them is the issue of mentoring younger academics who are new in the profession. Aside from bag-carrying dobale mentality, there is inadequate mentoring going on presently.

Of course, there are sound academic mentors in our universities, especially in the well-established federal universities, such as UNILAG, UI, UNN, ABU etc. Personally, I really appreciate the mentoring I received from late Prof. C. S. Momoh, Profs. S.B. Oluwole, Adetokunbo Sofoluwe, J.I. Omoregbe, Princewill Alozie and others. But the number of such real mentors genuinely interested in helping junior colleagues to attain their full academic potentials is decreasing.

Guardian Editorial

THE Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) in briefing and de-briefing the public on the formal ending of its four-month protracted dispute with the Federal Government, recently declared as illegal the Post-University Matriculation Examination (UME) through which Nigerian universities now admit candidates to their first degree programmes. During a press conference, the President of ASUU, Professor Ukachukwu Awuzie presented the salient issues agreed upon in the final negotiation rounds with the Federal Government, including the 40 per cent increase in salary, autonomy of the university administration (outside funding), increase to 70 years of the retirement age of university Professors and enhanced funding of the universities.

Above all, the Federal Government conceded that the funding of education will be based on UNESCO’s prescription that a minimum of 26 per cent of the annual budget should be allocated to education. This shall progressively be attained by the year 2020 in accordance with the Vision 20: 2020 of the government. The strike action declared by ASUU has since ended, and normalcy has returned to the university campuses. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that a whole semester of academic work was sacrificed in the course of a clearly avoidable impasse which was unduly prolonged.

With the new agreements in place, government should waste no time in giving effect to the contents as agreed, with the sole aim of avoiding any subsequent rancour. The vigilance of ASUU is imperative in ensuring adherence to the agreement should government fail to take advantage of the opportunity as a launch-pad for the improvement of university education in Nigeria in the march towards 2020.

Nonetheless, it is one of the comments made by Professor Awuzie that interests us here even more than the issues above in order to prevent the recurrence of more serious problems in the future. The ASUU President had condemned the Post-UME exercise, now a formidable prerequisite for the admission of candidates to the universities, dubbing it an illegality. He also condemned the proposed Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) which is supposed to replace the UME, and make it possible to conduct just one and the same examination for candidates seeking admission into universities, monotechnics, polytechnics and colleges of education, combining the erstwhile entrance examinations into higher institutions in the country.

The UTME, already in its proposal stage might soon be implemented unless the National Assembly or the government intervenes before JAMB acts on this apparently unpopular proposal. JAMB has shown no evidence of real efficiency in its conduct of examinations. Its primary interest should be in raising its level of performance. Besides, the unified examination structure is bound to result in additional problems, in addition to the obvious reduction of options for candidates.

The debate about the scope and powers of JAMB is neither new nor original. Was Professor Awuzie speaking on behalf of ASUU or in his personal capacity, particularly on the subject of the post-UME which is strongly defended by many ASUU members as an illustration of the freedom of each university to choose its own students? Professor Awuzie argues that the Post-UME is unknown to university statutes, and that only the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) has the sole right to conduct entrance examinations to the universities.

The reality is that the Post-UME exercise has been in existence for more than two years in both public and private universities where the JAMB examination is now treated as secondary. Government itself through JAMB had in the past consistently opposed the idea of a post-UME conducted by different universities to select their own students. But the universities were adamant. They complained about the gap between JAMB results and the actual ability of candidates. Public attention was further drawn to how examination malpractice had discredited JAMB-conducted examinations.

The question to ask is whether the continuation and strengthening of Post-UME processes by the universities would not eventually weaken the conduct of the Universities Matriculation Examination (UME) by JAMB. The Council and Senate of each university continues to insist on the integrity of the Post-UME in the various universities. Unless the integrity of JAMB examinations improve in a similar manner if not faster, a time may come when JAMB itself will become an unwelcome nuisance in the admission process, at which point Post-UME will become an unchallengeable phenomenon.

Whichever scenario is considered, what is clear is that there is a need for government to re-examine the policy framework at this early stage. For example, will JAMB continue to exist and in what context vis-?-vis a post-UME that supplants the UME? It is in this regard that Professor Awuzie’s comment becomes important and relevant, not just on the Post-UME but also, the scope and relevance of JAMB.

These are issues which the Federal Ministry of Education should re-examine. It should ensure that its policies are consistent with the wishes of stakeholders in the sector. The education sector is too important to be subjected to trial and error. This is why there must be a continuous discussion of the issues and such discussions should not be limited to only government circles. We therefore call on the National Assembly to conduct a forum for public debate on these issues so that most of the stakeholders can have the opportunity of advising government in their various capacities. The education sector is so important, it cannot be left to chance.