2 months ago
11 ARTICLE AD
It is no longer news that the Federal Government has pegged the minimum age for sitting the West African Senior School Certificate Examination and entrance to Nigerian universities at 18. Many comments for and against have been added by individuals and groups of people. I have some observations to make.
One, my first worry, regardless of the merits, is the timing. I do not understand why this divisive issue should be brought forth as a priority over many challenges in our educational system which the governments at all levels have been unable to address.
Two, nobody has been able to point out the section of the 1999 Constitution where 18 is raised as the minimum age for WASSCE except an allusion to the 6-3-3-4 system which in terms of content is as good as dead. I am yet to see the rules governing WASSCE where it was stated that the minimum age for sitting for the examination is 18. WASSCE is a regional examination across the West African coast; so it’s not just for Nigeria. Does Nigeria have its own separate rule as to who is qualified for WASSCE?
Three, my general impression about the rule is like the quota system in Nigeria, where your appointment and promotions in the civil service may not depend on your merit but on the region you come from. This quota system has created a situation where less qualified people have the legal right to lead and rule in government parastatals over those who are more qualified. The implication of the minimum age requirement is that all our children must move at the same pace regardless of whether they are talented, exceptional or highfliers or not. If it appears they are going faster than their peers, they must be retarded and all must enter the university at age 18 or 18+. It is like in a relay race where the cloth of the person in front must be pulled back to align with others behind. Of course, this does not encourage zest and a competitive spirit.
Four, the rule does not make provision for exceptional students, prodigies, highfliers and geniuses. This significant few is what captivates my attention and not the majority who will not have the problem with the 18-year minimum age. Those significant few highfliers are those that really make a monumental difference in the world. Compelling them to move at others’ pace is an injustice to them, their families and the nation. In all nations where age 18 is encouraged, there is always a provision for exceptional students, something our “new law” does not have at present. For example, one of the students assigned to my class as a professor in a United States university was 14. In any case, Nigeria is a federation and the issue like this should be left to each state. Overseas, each university has the liberty to fix its entry age.
Five, the arguments for, will be examined and I will show that those arguments are based on fables and shaky foundations, and the minimum age of 18 should just be advisory and not a law of Medes and Persia which must never be changed. The WASSCE is purely academic and the issue of age is irrelevant. If the student is not mature enough for it, he will fail; but if he could pass it then he is mature enough for it, except we want to oppress the student who should be encouraged. Academic maturity must not be confused with other areas of maturity. It will be illegal to ask qualified students not to sit for it on account of age as that is not a prerequisite for sitting for WASSCE or its equivalent, the General Certificate of Education. I sat for my O’ Levels at 16 once with a brilliant result. If I was asked to wait for two years before sitting for it, I am not sure I would have retained my enthusiasm to adequately prepare without being distracted by other things or perhaps vices that are characteristic of idle and youthful minds. We will end up creating more problems for the young minds in this age of diverse distractions and temptations of the youth.
Six, it is laughable to read some people writing about psychological maturity. One can always advance reasons for any policy that is determined to be forced into the throat of the populace. Jean Piaget’s developmental theory on the growth of children was written in 1936. While his proposed developmental stages may be sacrosanct, the specific ages he assigned cannot be universal, definitely not today. The development, including the cognition of children, differs from generation to generation and from different nationals. Growth is not just a function of age but much more of environment, exposure, experience and diet among others. Age is just a number. The 18-age maturity by Piaget may have been true when he wrote it but not now. If you take two identical twins and put them in different environments of growth with different diets, one poor feeding, the other excellent feeding and more exposure to better materials for growth, the difference would be clear. What happens after 10 years? You will discover that both are 10 years of age but their reasoning, growth and development, including physical appearance, differ. Those 18s who may be counted as mature during Piaget’s time may not match those who are just 12 years old in this age of Internet and information superhighway in terms of intelligence, reasoning and ability to make informed decisions. We are in an age where the children are more informed on many things than the older generation. This is an age where a 15-year-old girl marries an 80-year-old man, and both confess that it is the best to happen to them after many years of marriage.
Seven, granted that our constitution fixed 18 as the age of mental maturity, which is still debatable, mental and cognitive maturity should not be confused with already fixed legal maturity. It is not surprising that at this age, both adults and young minds behave similarly. You will notice emotional immaturity, sexual perverseness, involvement in cultism, suicidal tendencies, condemnable decisions etc in both the young and the old showing that emotional maturity is not just a matter of age but of experience and exposure. There is the suggestion that more years should be spent in secondary school in order to stabilise the student emotionally, on the belief that if they are emotionally mature, it will be difficult to lure them into vices.
This argument brings to the fore how we arrived at our national policies. Most policies are not products of research but products of sentiments and reservations and sadly at times, tribal sentiments. It’s the reason we are not developed as a nation. Is there any scientific research to support this argument? Right in our secondary schools, we have many students already initiated into cults by their peers and their teachers. Many teachers are responsible for seducing their students with sex for marks. Do we say those teachers are not mature emotionally? How does staying longer in secondary school make them better? Are we aware that most of those who are leaders of cults in our universities are mature students? Are we aware that the young ones are generally more serious and focused? Do we know that there is general apathy for excellence in the universities among male students, especially those we call mature students, while the younger ones are more serious than the older ones?
While the younger ones face their studies, the older ones are thinking of how to make money and beat the financial level of their parents and the affluent in society overnight. If you doubt this, what you are calling for is empirical data and facts that substantiate our assumptions or axioms. We don’t have it in this nation and don’t intend to have it to format the basis of our national policies, rather than the debatable arguments we are used to. In better organised societies, decisions are based on data and correct analysis. We have to come back to this civilised way of arriving at decisions as truly mature people, otherwise, policymakers will also be guilty of scientific immaturity.
Eight, giving age restrictions for academic pursuits in order to help the youth is like prescribing paracetamol for typhoid fever. The endemic nature of the rots in our educational system, including the learners, teachers and policymakers, demands that the government go into the roots of our problems and start dealing with them from the roots, from primary education. So the matter is beyond just age. Moral instructions and empowerment programmes to help the younger generations achieve all-round maturity are absent in our primary and secondary schools under the pretext of secularism. Indiscipline among teachers and students remains unchecked. The material wrong values among the adults that are negatively impacting the children are being glorified as smartness without being challenged. Parents and teachers, including school proprietors, are still giving special and immoral assistance to students during examinations. Changing the minimum age will only result in many false age declarations for no unjustifiable law can stop a typical Nigerian from moving forward or else they will “Japa.” Let us go to the primary and secondary schools and start addressing the rots in the system through science-based educational policies.
Prof. Olaleru lectures at the University of Lagos
