Problems With JAMB’s Admission Process
Following the appointment of new Registrar to take charge of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), the board introduced a new portal, Central Admission Processing System (CAPS) in order to regulate and eradicate influence and compromise in the admission processes, and to improve efficiency of the system.
Unfortunately, the champion of this new software has never introduced any laudable measures to regulate the admission process.
It will be ideal to hit the nail on the head. The slothfulness of this software has delayed many applicants and made some of them to lose hope of being admitted. Many applicants have lost hope of getting admission into their preferred tertiary institutions (universities) across the country, which has prompted them to put in for other programmes, such as National Diploma (ND) and National Certificate in Education (NCE). Some others had to register for another Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) before they were offered late admission into their schools of choice.
Many federal universities have commenced new academic calendars since December, which presumed that every student, including the newly admitted, would have resumed by then. But the sluggishness of this software delayed the admission process which disorganised academic calendar of some universities and some applicants were offered late admission. This shoddiness is enough to conclude that CAPS has brought more pains than comfort to admission seekers.
Examining the purpose for this software, the current JAMB admission policy is any different from previous policies, only that CAPS was introduced. So far, the concept of “catchment area” has not been eradicated from the admission policy. The policy is still open to manipulation and misconduct in the process of implementing “catchment area” clause.
If names of the admitted applicants would be selected by the universities themselves, how then would the JAMB know if there is no human influence?
Students who scored above 200 and 180 in their UTME are qualified to be admitted into the university but the chance of former is brighter than the latter. But, applicants with low UTME scores got admitted in the last UTME more than their peers that scored higher marks, which means the software cannot detect if there is manipulation in the process.
Apart from the above shortcomings, some students were given admission by the institution in which the course they were given was not the same with the one they chose while filling JAMB forms. For instance, a student was offered Pharmacy by the institution and what later appeared on his JAMB profile was Forestry. Some were admitted into two federal universities simultaneously. Is there any justification for this? The question demands answer from relevant stakeholders.
To be able to solve the problems, it is therefore essential for JAMB to liaise with tertiary institutions to find a lasting solution to the identified problems and re-organise the admission policy so as to standardise our education.
Nurudeen, 200-Level Mathematics, UDU Sokoto