•JAMB candidates
The dust raised recently over the poor performance of candidates in the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) may take much longer to abate, as 1,534,654 candidates who scored below 200 have petitioned Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), asking for a review of the process or face legal action.
In the petition dated May 12, the candidates, through their Counsel, John Nwobodo, are relying on the Freedom of Information Act to request JAMB to review the questions and answers to ascertain whether they matched with what the candidates supplied, reports The Guardian.
Giving further details about the candidates, Nwobodo stated that they consist of 2,031 who scored below 100; 3,820 who scored between 100-119; 57,419 who scored between 120-139; 488,197 who scored between 140 and 159; and 983,187 who scored between 160-199.
In a statement accompanying the official release of the result, he stated that the Board announced that only about 22 per cent of candidates scored 200 and above, while over 70 per cent scored below 200.
He said: “The statistics reveal the worst failure rate ever in the history of the JAMB-conducted examination, thereby raising public concern and outcry as to the reason behind the baffling and startling poor performance.
“Our clients highly dispute the results as not reflective of their effort, presupposing that there might have been a possible glitch in the JAMB software, potentially resulting in the mismatch between the questions and the answers.
“The above scenario has cast a shadow of doubt over the integrity of the software deployed by the Board in administering and marking the questions. Unfortunately, the system is programmed in a way that candidates are only able to view their scores against each subject and the aggregate thereof. Moreover, the development has put your Board in the spotlight, making the need for accountability at this point, and going forward, imperative and non-negotiable.
“In the circumstances, the transparency and accountability required of the Board entail a reconfiguration of your system to not only display the aggregate score of the candidates but also the questions and the corresponding answers. This approach would either validate the results as published by the Board, thus earning the Board much more respect and public trust, or clear the candidates’ doubt, or may produce a result necessitating the implementation of appropriate reforms to strengthen the integrity of the examination, thus positively impacting future examinations while addressing genuine cases arising from the recent examination.”
Nwobodo stated that he had a full briefing of the candidates to request that the board make full disclosure of the questions and the corresponding answers administered in respect of each candidate to enable self-evaluation.
“That your Board should undertake a comprehensive review of the marking of the questions administered to ascertain that the correct answers were fixed against the questions,” explaining that they would explore every legal avenue to seek justice for the aggrieved candidates.
