Abstract
The quota system and the catchment areas are federal government policies formulated to bridge the gap between the educationally developed states and the educationally less developed states. Sequel to the enactment of these policies, government established several universities across the country to create equal opportunity for all candidates. In spite of the astronomical growth of the universities in Nigeria, both the federal and the state governments have not been able to contend with the surging demand for the university education, hence the adoption of the quota system and catchment area policies. Serious concerns were expressed by relevant stakeholders on their perceived impact of the quota system and the catchment area on admissions into the federal and state universities in North Central Nigeria. This study therefore examined the impact of the quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions in North Central Nigeria. A research question and a null hypothesis guided the study. Descriptive survey design was adopted for the study. The population for the study was 14,347 staff in the federal and state universities in North Central Nigeria. A sample of 1,435 was drawn through stratified proportionate sampling technique. Data were collected using questionnaire and interviews. Mean scores and standard deviations were used to answer the research question, whereas t-test statistics were used to test the hypothesis at 0.05 level of significance. The findings of the results showed, among others, that the impact of the quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admission was to a high extent.
Introduction
Admission in the universities in North Central Nigeria has been so contentious as the surge for university education continues to rise. According to Ogbonnaya (2009), students’ admission is the formal acceptance into school or program of study for which certain requirements must be met. It is aimed at selecting the best from the pool of those qualified; hence, prospective students for admissions register and write Universities Matriculation Examination (UME) coordinated by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) after which some universities conduct an internal screening for the final selection and placement. Admissions into the universities vary according to the program of study, and this include admission into the remedial programs and part-time and full-time programs for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Universities are guided by admission policies such as quota system, catchment area, carrying capacity, and educationally less developed states, among others. The admission policy requires that a ratio of 60:40 in favor of sciences to arts be maintained. In line with this, the entry qualification is pegged at five credits in not more than two sittings. The federal government guidelines for admissions into its institution of higher learning are based on source elements such as academic merit determined by the UME score, and 45% of students’ admissions are allotted to it. Educationally less developed areas are given 20%, catchment areas have 25%, and 10% to the discretion of the Vice Chancellor of National Universities Commission (NUC; 1999) which is the quota system. This implies that 45% of the available spaces are reserved for candidates with very high marks. They are given first consideration for first choices of course and institution before other candidates. The catchment areas have 25%, and this is for candidates within the geographical and sociocultural area contiguous to the institution of the candidates’ applications. Some of the federal universities have all the states as their catchment areas, whereas other federal universities have their neighboring states as catchment areas. Invariably, all state-owned institutions have all local government areas as their catchment areas.
Obielumani (2008) defined quota system as any selection method (for employment, school admission, among others) whereby a certain set of percentage of those selected must be of a given ethnic or racial background and/or of a particular sex, whereas catchment area according to Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN; 2011) refers to the geographical and/or sociocultural areas contiguous to the institution candidates apply to. Sinclair (1992) defined policies as set principles, rules, and guidelines formulated or adopted by an organization to reach its long-term goals, and those are typically published in a booklet or other form that is widely accessible.
Quota system and catchment area policies are cognate policies of the FRN. These are formulated to create equitable access to educational opportunities for all its citizens. Educational policies such as quota system and catchment area are cognate policies designed by the FGN to diffuse ethnic tension and promote national integration. They are also designed to influence and determine all major decisions and actions and all activities that take place within educational institutions. In Nigeria, quota system and catchment area policies are taken into consideration during recruitment exercises, admission into universities among others, where a fixed number (quota) is assigned to each state or the local government area (catchment area) that is on advantage location to the institution bring competed for. Later, a selection of candidates is made based on the quota system and catchment area policies.
Quota system and catchment area policies are important, particularly, in a plural society such as Nigeria. Here, all citizens feel a sense of equal voice, equal representation, and equal participation. No citizen or group of citizens should feel marginalized. These policies enjoin public authorities. Semigovernment agencies, institutions of learning, and the private sectors are to ensure fair and effective representation of the states and local government areas or ethnic groups who are in position of power, authority, and placement in enrollment into schools, among others.
With the quota system and catchment area policies, universities are under obligation to admit students not entirely on merit but on quota of the states as stipulated by the government. This is a bid to foster equity in the university admission processes, as the FGN provides opportunity for all Nigerian citizens at all levels of education without any form of discrimination by introducing the quota system. The Federal Character Commission (1996) defined this as lowering the entering qualification of the states considered disadvantaged, indigene/nonindigene dichotomy, or what the JAMB calls the catchment area. Similarly, Ogbonnaya (2009) viewed quota system and catchment area as policies of the federal character in admission into schools, appointment to offices, and resource allocation.
In spite of the astronomical growth of universities in Nigeria, and the adoption of quota system and catchment area policies, both the federal and state governments have not been able to contend with the surging demand for university education. While some consider the policies as an equity formula, others consider them inequitable. Ekundayo and Ajayi (2009) asserted that the quota system and catchment area policies ensure equity and fairness in the admission processes. However, assenting this, Oduwaiye (2011) warned that much as it is good that the educationally disadvantaged area is being encouraged, it should not be at the detriment of others in a situation where a candidate does not gain access just because of his birthplace which is not too good.
Dissenting the opinion of the consensus apostles of quota system and catchment area policies of admission, Enemuo (2004) argued that the policy encourages social discrimination of one group against the other. The author stated that the quota system in all its ramifications is the practice of favoring some candidates at the expense of others in the university admissions on the basis of state of origin, local government area, tribe, nepotism, or choice of course of study. Enemuo further pointed out that the application of the quota system to students’ admissions denies meritorious candidate admissions into the universities. This discrimination is also portrayed in the payment of tuition fees for nonindigenes. There are no definite policies as to tuition fees, but as part of funding initiative, universities request the payment of tuition fees which vary from university to university and are inequitable as nonindigenes are charged more fees in some universities. In line with the above, the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) policy document described Nigeria as being characterized by patriarchal nepotism. Students’ admissions are also influenced by certain policies that include carrying capacity. According to Oduwaiye (2009), carrying capacity means students are admitted into the university based on available facilities. Even though the policy is to enhance quality in university education, it has given room for ethnicity to influence selection of meritorious students to be admitted into the university. Oduwaiye cited the case of University of Ilorin that, when in 2009, it had 90,000 students who met the JAMB requirement for admission but has a carrying capacity of only 6,000 which is beyond the quota system. The author therefore argued that quota system and carrying capacity policies are major factors hindering equity in the university admissions in Nigeria. This is because using quota system to guide and regulate access to university has inequitable effect (Akpan & Undie, 2007). In addition, Olonde (2005 in Okolo, 2014) gave a clear picture of what thrives in Nigerian universities during admissions and employment as he stated that one of Nigeria’s reliable scholars also captured the picture of Nigerian universities in this way:
. . . Universities suffered from arbitrary governance . . . Rather than being a place which justice and truth are to be nurtured, the universities triumphed on mediocrity and untruths. Promotion was earned through sycophancy and the admission procedure became systematically bastardized as wives, children and cronies of vice chancellors had their own admission quota without reference to the established procedure. University governance became unpredictable and university finances in shamble. (pp. 29-36)
Good as this policy seems, it has been grossly bastardized by the influence of ethnicity derived from tribe, gender, religion, and class status, among others. The FGN introduced the quota system in an attempt to provide equity in the universities, but this has been grossly abused because universities may be encouraging these sets of candidates while they are throwing away other quality students. This perhaps explains why Akpaku (2013) wonders on how in universities in North Central States of Nigeria, candidates who score less marks in JAMB and aptitude test examinations could secure admission while those who score higher would not. This perhaps explains the high rate of poor academic performance in the universities in North Central States of Nigeria. In confirmation, Ojedele and Ilusanya (2006) maintained that the tendency to admit candidates with low scores in preference to those with high marks scores leads to high drop-out rates and poor academic performance in the universities. Therefore, Ifedili (2006) recommended that there is a need to integrate the nonindigenes in the state employment and that equal opportunity should be given to nonindigenes in all states of the federation. This will bring about a sense of belonging and respect to humanity. Ifedili further suggested that government should try to instill love, peace, and unity in her representatives at various establishments so that there will be no more perpetuation of wickedness against the nonindigenes. According to Ifedili, this will bring about the desired unity and that nonindigenes should be promoted as at when due and should receive the same benefits that other employees get from the government. Today, stakeholders express dismay over the poor performance among the graduates in the labor market as well as defective admission procedures. While the quota system has to do with a number assigned to a divisional, geographical, and sociocultural area, it is also mapped out as catchment areas within the divisions during admission processes; therefore, admission practices in universities in North Central States call for investigation because these vices in universities have far-reaching implications on the quality of the university output, hence the need for this study.
Statement of the Problem
Government in an effort to bridge the educational gap introduced the quota system and catchment area policies. However, whenever these policies are raised, Nigeria is polarized into consensus apostles and dissenting factions. While some call it an equity formula, others consider it inequitable, because the conduct of students’ admission procedure seems to be devoid of equity. It has also been observed that meritorious students are denied admissions because their quotas are filled and examination grades are manipulated in favor of some students because of their state of origin. Stakeholders of university education in North Central States of Nigeria have expressed deep dissatisfaction on the conduct of admissions in universities in the area. They alleged that admission procedure in these universities is unconventional, unethical, and unfavorable to meritorious candidates or candidates from poor socioeconomic background as it will impair national unity and integration due to the parochial influence of ethnicity portrayed in the implementation of quota system and catchment area policies. Rules and regulations are compromised where certain mischievous behaviors seem to be condoned because a dominant group is involved. Quota system and catchment area policies seem to have created untold hardships on students because parents are displeased with the manner in which campuses in the North Central Nigeria are overpopulated. There are barely enough facilities for all the students admitted during a given academic session.
Scope of the Study
The study focuses on the federal and state universities in the North Central States of Nigeria. The study is delimited to the impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions in the universities in the North Central Nigeria. The choice of the federal and state universities is predicated upon the assumption that the impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions in universities is predominant in the federal and state universities in the North Central Nigeria. The study therefore covers the existing (five) federal universities and (six) state universities in the North Central Nigeria. The academic and the senior nonteaching staff of the federal and state universities in the North Central Nigeria were used as subjects for the study. The content area covers the impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admission in the North Central Nigeria.
Research Question and Hypothesis
The study was guided by one research question and a null hypothesis:
Method
The study adopted a descriptive survey design. The area of this study is North Central States of Nigeria. It comprised six states which include Benué, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Plateau, and Niger, and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. At the time of this research work, there were five federal universities and six state universities in operation in the area. The North Central States are considered most suitable for this study because of the apparent ethnic diversity and educational backwardness in the region. These conditions have made the zone most vulnerable to the influences of quota system, catchment area, and ethnicity on the university management.
The population consisted of the academic and the senior nonacademic staff of the federal and state universities in North Central States, Nigeria. The total staff of the federal universities used for the study was 9,980 comprising 4,443 academic staff and 5,537 senior nonacademic staff, whereas the number of the staff of state universities was 4,367 comprising 1,610 academic staff and 2,757 nonacademic staff, totaling 14,347.
The sample of this study was 1,435 staff of the federal and state universities in North Central States of Nigeria. Stratified proportionate sampling technique was used to obtain 10% of the academic and senior nonacademic staff of the federal and state universities in North Central States of Nigeria. Stratified proportionate sampling procedures were used to constitute the number of research subjects of this study into strata, namely, the academic staff and the senior nonacademic staff of the federal and state universities. Each of the states in the North Central Nigeria, Benué, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, and Plateau, and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, represents a stratum. It was through this method that 10% of both the academic and senior nonacademic staff of the federal and state universities were sampled. In other words, 10% of the entire population of the study was selected.
The instrument for data collection was a 23-item researchers-developed questionnaire titled, “Impact of Quota System and Catchment Area on University Management in North Central State Questionnaire” (QSCAQ). The instrument was divided into two sections. Section A seeks to elicit information from the respondents on their demographic data. These include state of origin, tribe, place of work, qualification, post of responsibility, and number of years in service, whereas Section B has eight items which sought to elicit information from the staff on quota system, and the catchment area as factors on students’ admissions.
The instrument was structured on a 4-point rating scale of very high extent (VHE), high extent (HE), low extent (LE), and very low extent (VLE). In addition to the questionnaire as the main instrument, an interview schedule with 10 open-ended questions in line with the research question was used among the different union leaders in the universities to supplement the questionnaire.
Copies of the questionnaire were administered to the respondents using three research assistants. The choice of these research assistants was based on their state of origin and/or place of domicile; 1,035 copies of the questionnaire administered were correctly filled and returned.
Method of Data Analysis
Mean and standard deviation were used to answer the research question, whereas the t test was used to test the hypothesis at 0.05 level of significance. For the research question, the decision guideline was arrived at using real limits of numbers as follows: 3.50 to 4.00 VHE, 2.50 to 3.49 HE, 1.50 to 2.49 LE, and 1.0 to 1.49 VLE. For the hypothesis, the decision rule was as follows: If the calculated t value is equal to or greater than the t critical value (0.05), the null hypothesis was rejected. On the contrary, if the calculated t value is less than the t critical value at the same alpha level and degree of freedom, the null hypothesis was accepted.
Results
The data on Table 1 show the mean scores and standard deviations of the federal and state universities’ staff in North Central Nigeria with regard to the extent of the impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions in universities. The data indicated that the mean scores for staff of federal universities in North Central States of Nigeria for Items 16, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are 3.10, 2.89, 2.63, 2.50, 2.52, 2.57, 2.02, and 2.20, respectively, and standard deviations of the items are 0.92, 0.90, 1.06, 1.04, 1.03, 0.99, 1.01, and 0.99, respectively. From these results, it can be observed that the staff of the federal universities agreed that Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were to an HE on the impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions in the universities in North Central States because the mean scores are above the decision point of 2.50. Whereas, Items 7 and 8 were viewed by staff of the federal universities in North Central Nigeria as having LE impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions in the universities in North Central States.
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Respondents on the Impact of Quota System and Catchment Area Policies on Students’ Admissions in Universities in North Central States.
Note. HE = high extent; LE = low extent.
The data on Table 1 also show that the staff of state universities in North Central Nigeria had the mean rating scores of 2.97, 2.79, 2.64, 2.55, 2.65, 2.62, 2.14, and 2.47, respectively, and standard deviations of the items are 1.02, 0.90, 1.07, 1.07, 1.09, 1.05, 1.05, and 1.07, respectively. From these results, it can be observed that the staff of the state universities agreed that Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were to an HE on the impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions in the universities in North Central States because the mean scores are above the decision point of 2.50. Whereas, Items 7 and 8 were viewed by staff of state universities in North Central Nigeria as having LE impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions in universities in North Central States.
The cluster mean of 2.57 and the standard deviation of 0.64 for both groups show that both respondents do perceive that the impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions in universities in North Central States is to an HE.
Based on the results, it can be concluded that quota system and catchment area policies impact on students’ admissions in that admissions are inequitable and inaccessible. Admission processes are messed up, leading to the production of low-quality graduates, unethical practices during admission, and overpopulation of universities’ campuses. This is in consonance with the trade union leaders interviewed. They point out that merit is sacrificed at the expense of quota system and catchment area policies and that students are admitted beyond the carrying capacity of the campuses. They added such impact of quota system and catchment area policies can degenerate to unethical practices during the admission processes which mar the management of universities.
Hypothesis
Data presented on Table 2 show the t-test analysis of the responses of the staff of the federal and state universities. The data indicate that the calculated t for Items 1 and 2 are 2.048 and 1.885 which are greater than 0.05 level. The hypothesis is rejected for Items 1 and 2. The data further revealed that the calculated ts −1.114, −0.663, −1.895, −0.747, −1.846, and −4.032 for Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively, are less than the critical t or table value of t which is 0.05. This implies that the staff of the federal and state universities do not differ significantly in their mean ratings on impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions in the universities in North Central States of Nigeria because the calculated value is less than the critical value. To this extent, the null hypothesis is accepted.
The t-Test Analysis of the Responses of Staff of Federal and State Universities on the Impact of Quota System and Catchment Area Policies on Students’ Admissions Into Universities.
Note. S = significant; NS = not significant.
The overall t value is −1.150 with the significant value of .250, which is below 0.05 level; the hypothesis is accepted. This shows that there is no significant difference between the mean ratings of staff of the federal and state universities on their perceived impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions in the universities in North Central States.
Discussion of the Findings
The research question sought to examine the impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions in the universities in North Central States. The study revealed that the quota system and the catchment area have inequitable effect on students’ admission processes; quota system and catchment area policy of admission avails accessibility to the university education. It also bastardizes admissions processes, contributes to the production of low-quality graduates in the universities in North Central States of Nigeria, and it encourages unethical practices during admission processes and makes for overpopulation of university campuses in North Central States. However, the quota system and catchment area policies do not promote the activities of cultism in the universities of North Central States and do not influence the allocation of hostel accommodation to the students. These findings are in line with Akpan and Undie (2007) who asserted that using the quota system to guide and regulate access to university has inequitable effect. Some of the items are also consistent with Adayemi (2001) who reported that the 2004-2015 admission list of a state university shows that while source local government areas have candidates scoring more than 200 points and above, others have very few candidates who managed to score up to 180 points which was the cutoff mark. Consequently, those candidates who scored 200 and above were from the so-called educationally advantage local government areas where their quotas are already filled. They were denied admissions, but those candidates who scored 180 points from a local government with less number of candidates were admitted.
There is no significant difference between the mean rating of staff of the federal and state universities with regard to the impact of quota system and catchment area policies on students’ admissions into the universities in North Central States of Nigeria. However, there was significant difference between the mean rating of staff of the federal and state universities in Items 1, 23, and 30 with regard to the extent of the inequitable effect of quota system and catchment area policies on the students’ admission processes.
The interview schedule conducted among serving academic staff union of universities (ASUU) chairmen revealed two categories of opinion on the impact of quota system and catchment area policies on university management in North Central States of Nigeria. Although some indigenous ASUU chairmen are consensus apostles of the policy, others dissent the policy. However, those in support of the policies see it as equitable policy that not only bridges the educational gap but also creates job opportunities for their sons and daughters, brings university education closer to their people, and aids the implementation of the National Policy on Education. Conversely, the dissenting opposers see the policy as an albatross to national unity, an abuse of admission processes, and instrumental to the irrepressible decline in education if not properly managed.
However, Ekundayo and Adedokun (2009) disagreed with the findings when he asserted that the quota system and catchment area policies ensure equity and fairness in the admission processes. With the quota system and catchment area policies, universities are under obligation to admit students not entirely on merit but on quota of states as stipulated by the government. The federal government care up with quota system and catchment area policies in the bid to create equitable access to universities, bridge the educational gap, and meet the surging demand for higher education.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, it was recommended that government should implement the federal character principle at both the federal and state universities. The universities in addition to achieving excellence should encourage universality out of which it derives her name, that is to foster care, respect, and integrity; promote equity and justice; as well as provide fertile ground for the federal character principle and other national policies. It is also recommended that a committee made of principal officers, professors, deans, heads of departments, and senior academic and nonteaching staff should be set up to coordinate admission processes in universities. It will be the responsibility of the committee to ensure that admissions are devoid of any interference whether ethnic, catchment area, or quota, but it should be purely on merit so that Nigeria can once produce graduates who can compete anywhere in the world. Merit should not be sacrificed at the altar of quota system and catchment area dogma.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.