For me, that policy is ill-advised and anti-people. It is retrogressive and may not positively impact the education system. In fact, it may do more harm than good. The education sector is so crucial that introducing inimical or retrogressive policies could jeopardize the future of our children.
Even if such a policy must be introduced, it should not be automatic. There should be a transitional period to sensitize and convince stakeholders of its desirability. I’m not sure they considered the fate of students graduating from secondary school at age 16. What do they expect these students to do—idle away for two years at home waiting to turn 18 before seeking admission to university? That doesn’t sound logical. Regrettably, this policy will interrupt the educational and academic trajectories of our youth.
Why would the Minister even contemplate such a retrogressive policy? How is the age of students seeking admission into tertiary institutions the only headache of the education sector? It’s only in Nigeria that children can be married at age 12 but are not allowed to attend university at age 15 under the pretext of being underage.
ADVERSE IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLICY
The adverse implications of this policy are significant. The mental trauma inflicted on intelligent students who have already met all the requisite requirements for university admission at ages 15 or 16 is immense. Many of these children score over 300 in JAMB and achieve excellent O’Level results, with some earning up to nine or eight distinctions in WAEC at such a young age. What justice is there in denying such brilliant students admission based on age while admitting older ones with lower grades?
This policy could also lead some of these children to join internet fraud or other criminal activities while waiting an extra two or three years to reach the minimum age limit for university admission. Some may never continue their education after experiencing the allure of easy money from scams or other get-rich-quick schemes.
Therefore, I call on the President to intervene and hold the Minister accountable. There are numerous challenges in the education sector that we expect him to address. An age limit for admission into tertiary institutions is certainly not one of them. The President must act swiftly to avoid chaos in the education system and society at large. This policy should be suspended, as it is unlikely to provide any desirable solution to the myriad problems plaguing the education sector.
SHOULD THE MINISTER HAVE HAD HIS WAY WITHOUT APPROVAL?
I am not sure Mr. President was properly briefed on the implications of this toxic policy; I suspect he was deceived. What interest does this policy serve? Is it national or parochial? What is the real motive? Was it borne out of patriotism, or is any specific group being targeted? These questions demand sincere answers.
For me, age should not be a barrier for brilliant teenagers seeking admission into tertiary institutions in this age of global competition. I don’t consider being underage a challenge in our education sector because students aged 15 and 16 have shown exceptional academic performance in both O’Level and Unified Matriculation Examination (UME) conducted by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB).
Importantly, I don’t think the proponents of this policy considered the issue of incessant strike actions plaguing our university system. Due to constant disruptions by strikes, even those who gain university admission at age 19 often spend an extra two or three years before graduating. Imagine the fate of students who begin their O’Level exams at age 18, only to face additional challenges in meeting the requirements for JAMB. Some students take these exams multiple times before achieving the minimum requirements for admission into tertiary institutions.
