Opinion
Why Reduce Cut-Off Mark for C.O.E ?
Quote:”Although the idea of lowering the cut-off to below the pass mark of 200 does not sit well with many Nigerians. 35.5% in any examination anywhere in the world is a fail. And no candidate that scores below 200 should ideally be considered for admission into any tertiary institution in the country.”
Recently, the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) and the tertiary education stakeholders approved 150 as the benchmark for admission into universities and 100 for polytechnics and colleges of education for the 2025/2026 academic session. They, However, clarified that no tertiary institutions should admit students who score below the approved scores, but institutions can still fix higher cut-off marks for their applicants. This has remained the pattern over the years. Higher scores are required to go into universities while applicants with lower scores are welcomed in colleges of education and polytechnics. And the question is, why? At first glance, the disparity in the entry requirements into universities and colleges of education may appear to be a flexible, inclusive approach to higher education access. However, a deeper look reveals that pegging the college of education cut-off mark so low is not only problematic but a threat to the quality of education and the dignity of the teaching profession in Nigeria.
By setting the minimum entry score for Colleges of Education at just 100 out of 400, the message being sent is loud and clear: teaching is not a profession that demands excellence. It is a profession for the “Olodos” This undermines every effort claimed to be made by the government and stakeholders to reposition teaching as a noble, intellectual, and competitive career. The same country that wants to raise the standard of education cannot afford to lower the standard for training those who will educate future generations. Colleges of Education are responsible for preparing teachers for Nigeria’s basic education sector. These are the people who will teach children in their formative years—the foundation of any nation’s future. If we continue to accept candidates with very low academic abilities into these institutions, how can we expect them to produce competent, inspiring, and innovative educators?
Accepting candidates who score as low as 25% on the UTME is a recipe for mediocrity. It sends a message that anyone can be a teacher, regardless of their intellectual preparation. This will not only dilute the quality of teachers but worsen the already low public perception of the profession. There are many students with strong academic credentials who are genuinely passionate about becoming educators. Setting the cut-off at 100 trivializes their efforts and sacrifices. It lumps them together with individuals who may not have the intellectual or emotional readiness for teaching, leading to overcrowded classrooms, underwhelming graduates, and frustrated employers.While universities are expected to maintain a cut-off mark of 150, colleges of education are effectively reduced to a dumping ground for low-performing candidates. This dichotomy creates a sense of inequality and inferiority around education colleges, when in fact, the reverse should be the case.
If anything, those training to shape young minds should meet standards equal to or higher than university students, not lower.The effects of this policy may not be immediately visible, but in the long run, they will be devastating. We are likely to see: a further decline in basic education outcomes. Someone joked that as the cut-off mark keeps dwindling every academic year, by 2030, the cut-off for the universities will be 100 and that of colleges of education and polytechnics reduced to 70 or 50. Who is fooling who?The chances of having more poorly trained teachers entering the public school system is inevitable. An irritated teacher recently lamented how the public schools are flooded with so-called teachers who do not know their left from their right, compelling the old teachers to do the job of teaching and training them.The low entry requirements to colleges of education can lead to higher attrition rates in the teaching profession due to unprepared candidates; diminished respect and remuneration for teachers; greater educational inequality between rural and urban areas and lots more.
It is therefore advised that rather than lowering standards, those in-charge of the education should raise entry requirements for Colleges of Education to at least 140 or 150 to align with university expectations. Although the idea of lowering the cut-off to below the pass mark of 200 does not sit well with many Nigerians. 35.5% in any examination anywhere in the world is a fail. And no candidate that scores below 200 should ideally be considered for admission into any tertiary institution in the country. As earlier stated, our colleges of education are now painfully places for poor grade students. That should be concerning to those in authority and stakeholders in the education sector. And this can only be corrected when our leaders pay adequate attention to our colleges of education. There should be improved funding and facilities in these institutions to attract top-tier candidates.
Incentives such as scholarships, housing, or job security should be provided for those who perform well and commit to teaching. Some corporate organisations have done this over the years and one thinks it is high time both federal, state and local government areas get visibly and sincerely involved. All over the world, teaching is regarded as a noble and professional career and the case shouldn’t be different in Nigeria. If we are truly serious about fixing Nigeria’s education system, we must start by fixing how we train our teachers. Lowering the cut-off mark to 100 for Colleges of Education is a step backward and a stain on our national conscience. We must demand excellence from those who will one day stand before our children—not just in words, but in policy. After all, the quality of education in any nation will never rise above the quality of its teachers.
The reason usually adduced for lowering the cut-off mark is candidates’ poor performance at entrance exams. And one wonders how lowering the bar will lead to higher performance. How will that challenge students to harder? One thinks it high time those in-charge of the education sector, parents, and teachers think of solving the problems bedeviling the sector from the root instead of the usual method of treating the symptom rather than the disease. There is an urgent need to prioritize the welfare and quality of teachers if we must expect better results. It is also important that the authorities look into the speculations that the lower cut-off is a ploy by some universities to get maximum payment for Post UTME, knowing that no candidate with less than 200 will be given admission into any department in the institutions. This kind of extortion should not be allowed to continue.
What is even the reason for double entrance examinations for a single admission. If UTME is no longer enough to earn admission into higher institutions in Nigeria then JAMB should be scrapped and higher institutions given the authority to conduct their own entrance examinations.On the other hand, if JAMB is still found worthy of conducting credible entrance examinations into tertiary institutions in the country, then we should do away with post UTME examinations. Our education sector must be sanitized for us to get the best, desired result
Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading
Quote: “A clean environment is not a government gift; it is a civic duty that protects our health, preserves our cities, and reflects our national character.”
For many Nigerians who grew up in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, the last Saturday of every month followed a familiar pattern. Roads were deserted, markets closed, and residents swept compounds, cleared gutters, cut overgrown weeds, and disposed off refuse. The monthly environmental sanitation exercise became a national ritual that promoted cleanliness, discipline, and civic responsibility. As an environment correspondent about two decades ago, I joined officials of the Rivers State Ministry of Environment on sanitation monitoring tours across Port Harcourt and surrounding communities. Although enforcement officers were sometimes accused of excesses, the exercise succeeded in creating public awareness about the importance of keeping our surroundings clean. Over time, however, the practice faded away in many states.
In its absence, indiscriminate dumping of refuse, blocked drainages and environmental neglect became increasingly common. Today, heaps of waste line roads, markets and motor parks, while gutters clogged with plastics contribute to perennial flooding. Given the mounting environmental challenges facing Nigerian cities, there is no better time to revive environmental sanitation. Its return is no longer a matter of nostalgia; it is a practical necessity for public health, environmental safety, and sustainable development. Poor sanitation remains a major cause of disease. Stagnant water and uncollected waste create breeding grounds for mosquitoes, flies and rodents, increasing the risk of malaria, cholera, typhoid and other infections. Floodwaters contaminated by refuse also expose communities to serious health hazards.
Rapid urbanisation has worsened the situation. Cities such as Lagos, Port Harcourt and Abuja are expanding faster than their waste management systems can cope. As populations grow, so does the volume of waste generated daily. Monthly sanitation exercises can help rebuild environmental consciousness. Beyond cleaning streets, they remind citizens that environmental cleanliness is a shared responsibility. They also offer an opportunity to educate children and young people about hygiene, public health and community participation. Critics argue that the old sanitation policy restricted movement and was sometimes abused by security personnel. Those concerns were valid, but they do not invalidate the concept itself. Rather than abandon it, governments should reform the programme to make it more humane, participatory and transparent.
That is why the recent decision by the Lagos State Government to reintroduce monthly sanitation deserves commendation. Even if participation is largely voluntary, the move sends a strong signal that environmental responsibility must be taken seriously. Other states should emulate this initiative. In Rivers State, the Rivers State Waste Management Agency has intensified efforts to improve waste collection and restore Port Harcourt’s reputation as the Garden City. Reintroducing monthly sanitation would complement these efforts and deepen public involvement. At the federal level, policies such as the Digital Waste Marketplace, the Plastic Waste Policy and the National Waste Management Network are commendable. However, environmental sanitation remains one of the most direct and visible ways to mobilise citizens toward cleaner communities.
The exercise, however, must be supported by efficient waste management infrastructure. Citizens cannot be expected to maintain clean surroundings if there are inadequate waste bins, irregular refuse collection, and limited recycling facilities. Governments at all levels should invest in modern waste management systems, properly fund sanitation agencies, and promote recycling programmes. Waste sorting should become standard practice to reduce the volume of refuse ending up in landfills and drainage channels. Countries such as Singapore, Sweden and South Korea have demonstrated that waste can become a valuable economic resource. Recycling industries in these countries create jobs while protecting the environment. Nigeria can adopt similar strategies and turn waste into wealth.
Environmental laws must also be enforced consistently. Regulations against illegal dumping exist in many states but are rarely implemented. Offenders should face penalties, but enforcement must be fair and free from extortion. Urban planning is another critical factor. Poor drainage systems, overcrowding and inadequate sewage infrastructure worsen sanitation problems. Governments must prioritise road construction, drainage maintenance and orderly urban development. Markets deserve particular attention. They generate enormous quantities of waste every day, yet many lack organised disposal systems. Local councils and market associations should work together to establish effective waste collection arrangements in commercial centres. Religious institutions, schools, traditional rulers and civil society groups also have important roles to play.
Environmental responsibility should be taught and reinforced as a social value. Community leaders can help change attitudes by consistently promoting cleaner habits. This issue is even more urgent in an era of climate change. Flooding, erosion and extreme weather events are already threatening many Nigerian communities. Poor waste disposal worsens these challenges by blocking waterways and reducing urban resilience. A clean environment also offers economic benefits. Well-maintained cities attract investors, tourists and businesses. Reduced disease outbreaks lower healthcare costs and improve productivity among workers and students. More importantly, cleanliness reflects national values. A nation that allows public spaces to deteriorate projects an image of disorder and neglect. Nigerians deserve cleaner streets, healthier neighbourhoods and safer communities.
Reviving environmental sanitation will not solve all environmental problems overnight, but it can serve as a powerful starting point. Combined with effective waste management, public education and stronger infrastructure, it can restore environmental consciousness across the country. Ultimately, environmental cleanliness is a shared responsibility. Government must provide leadership, infrastructure and enforcement, while citizens must demonstrate discipline and civic commitment. From disposing of household waste properly to keeping drains free of obstruction, every Nigerian has a role to play. If Nigeria is serious about protecting public health, reducing flooding and building livable cities, the return of monthly environmental sanitation is a step whose time has come.
By: Calista Ezeaku
Quote:”Every component of creation is interdependent, demonstrating that God designed nature as a balanced system in which each part contributes to the wellbeing of the whole”.
From the very first chapter of Scripture, the Bible presents a profound truth: creation was not accidental, random, or without meaning. The universe emerged from the deliberate counsel of an all-wise God who fashioned every aspect of life with purpose and precision. The heavens were stretched out by His command, the earth was carefully positioned, the seas were bounded, and every living creature was assigned a distinct role within a perfectly coordinated ecological system. When God surveyed His completed work, He pronounced it “very good,” affirming that creation was whole, harmonious, and exactly as He intended. The natural world remains a visible testimony to God’s intentionality. The sun provides warmth and energy at the right intensity to sustain life. The moon governs tides and seasons. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen.
Rivers irrigate the land and quench thirst. Bees and butterflies pollinate crops. Birds disperse seeds. Animals maintain biodiversity. Every component of creation is interdependent, demonstrating that God designed nature as a balanced system in which each part contributes to the wellbeing of the whole. Nothing was made without significance, and nothing was left to chance. Among all created beings, humanity occupies a unique and privileged position. Unlike plants and animals, man was created in the image and likeness of God. This divine imprint endowed human beings with intelligence, moral consciousness, creativity, and the capacity for relationship with their maker. It also established mankind as the steward of creation. God granted humanity dominion over the earth, not as a license for reckless exploitation, but as a sacred trust to cultivate, protect, and preserve the world He had declared good.
Dominion, in God’s original intention, was to be exercised with wisdom, compassion, and responsibility. Human beings were meant to care for the land, use natural resources judiciously, and ensure that all forms of life flourished in accordance with divine order. The earth was to be managed as a trust from God, not plundered for selfish gain. Unfortunately, this divine mandate has been grossly misunderstood and widely abused. It is deeply regrettable that man has deviated so drastically from God’s original intention. Instead of stewardship, humanity has too often embraced greed. Instead of preservation, there has been exploitation. Instead of gratitude to the Creator, there has been reckless consumption and abuse of the environment. Across the world, forests are felled indiscriminately, rivers are contaminated, and fertile lands are stripped of their productivity.
Species disappear as habitats are destroyed. Air pollution threatens public health, and climate change disrupts weather patterns and livelihoods. What God created as a life-supporting ecosystem is increasingly treated as a disposable commodity. In Nigeria, the consequences are especially painful. Oil spills in the Niger Delta have devastated farmlands, poisoned rivers, and destroyed fishing communities. Poor waste management clogs drains and contributes to flooding. Erosion eats away homes and roads. Illegal mining and logging scar the landscape. In many cases, communities suffer while those responsible evade justice. At the root of much of this destruction is corruption. Funds earmarked for environmental protection, sanitation, and erosion control are often diverted for personal enrichment. Regulatory agencies are compromised through bribery.
Powerful individuals and corporations place profit above human welfare. Corruption thus becomes not only a moral failure but an assault on God’s creation. This environmental abuse is also a tragic expression of man’s inhumanity to man. When water is polluted, children fall sick. When farmlands are destroyed, farmers lose their means of survival. When rivers are contaminated, fishermen are plunged into poverty. When floods and erosion displace families, communities are torn apart. The burden of environmental degradation falls most heavily on the poor and vulnerable, while future generations inherit a diminished world. Yet, despite humanity’s failures, there remains hope for restoration. God’s purpose for creation has not changed. He still calls His people to responsible stewardship and righteous living. When individuals and nations return to God’s principles, they begin to view the earth not as an object to exploit, but as a sacred trust to preserve.
Responsible stewardship means protecting natural resources, planting trees, reducing pollution, disposing of waste properly, enforcing environmental laws, rejecting corruption, and treating others with justice and compassion. It requires governments to act with integrity, businesses to operate ethically, faith communities to teach creation care, and citizens to take personal responsibility for the environment. Creation care is therefore more than an environmental concern; it is a spiritual obligation. Our treatment of the earth and of one another reflects the sincerity of our reverence for God. To exploit nature, oppress the vulnerable, and enrich ourselves through corruption is to rebel against His purpose. To protect creation and uphold justice is to honor the Creator and participate in His original design. The world God made was declared “very good.” It is our solemn duty to ensure that our actions preserve rather than destroy that goodness.
By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
Quote: “China’s rise was not a miracle. It was the result of deliberate planning, disciplined execution, and a national determination to make poverty reduction the foundation of national development.”
A short TikTok video by @ancientchinaforever recently offered a compelling summary of China’s remarkable transformation from one of the world’s poorest nations to a global economic powerhouse. In just a few minutes, it captured a lesson that developing countries like Nigeria cannot afford to ignore: meaningful development does not happen by chance. It is the product of vision, consistency, and a deliberate commitment to confronting poverty. In 1981, according to the World Bank, nearly 88 percent of China’s population lived in extreme poverty. The country was overwhelmingly rural, industrially weak, and lacking in modern infrastructure. Millions of people had limited access to quality healthcare, education, and basic social services. Yet China refused to accept poverty as its destiny. Its leaders made a strategic decision to treat poverty reduction as the starting point of national development.
Rather than relying on slogans or isolated welfare programmes, they created a coordinated system that mobilised government institutions at every level toward one overriding goal: improving the living conditions of ordinary citizens.
This was the turning point in China’s history. Poverty alleviation became a national mission. Clear targets were established, responsibilities were assigned to provincial and local governments, and officials were evaluated based on measurable results. Data was used to identify poor households, monitor progress, and adjust strategies where necessary.In effect, China built what may be described as a national development machine.The first major reforms focused on agriculture. Through the household responsibility system, farmers were given greater control over their land and allowed to sell surplus produce after meeting government quotas.
This policy created incentives for productivity and innovation. The results were dramatic. Agricultural output rose significantly, rural incomes increased, and millions were lifted out of poverty.With food security improving, China turned to industrialisation. The government established Special Economic Zones, most notably in Shenzhen, to attract foreign investment and promote export-driven manufacturing. What was once a small fishing community quickly transformed into one of the world’s leading industrial and technology hubs. Factories created millions of jobs, drawing workers from rural areas into expanding urban centres. China soon became the manufacturing capital of the world, producing electronics, textiles, machinery, and consumer goods for global markets.The revenue generated from industrial growth was reinvested in infrastructure and human development.
China understood that development requires more than factories. It demands modern infrastructure that connects people, goods, and markets. Massive investments were made in roads, railways, airports, seaports, electricity, and telecommunications.
Today, China’s high-speed rail system, modern cities, and efficient logistics networks stand as visible proof of decades of purposeful investment. Equally important was China’s commitment to education and healthcare.Schools were expanded, literacy improved, and vocational training equipped workers with the skills needed in a modern economy. Healthcare reforms reduced preventable diseases and protected families from being pushed deeper into poverty by medical costs.These investments ensured that economic growth translated into tangible improvements in living standards.
Another defining feature of China’s development model was policy continuity. Through successive Five-Year Plans, national priorities were clearly outlined and pursued over decades. While leaders changed, the core development agenda remained consistent. This stability encouraged investment, strengthened institutions, and allowed long-term projects to be completed. Unlike countries where each administration abandons the policies of its predecessor, China sustained a clear sense of direction.The results have been extraordinary. According to the World Bank, China has lifted more than 800 million people out of extreme poverty—the largest poverty reduction effort in human history. A broad middle class has emerged, and the country has become the world’s second-largest economy. Chinese companies such as Huawei Technologies and Alibaba Group now compete at the forefront of global innovation.
China’s journey has not been without challenges. Rapid industrialisation has contributed to environmental degradation, regional disparities, and demographic pressures. However, these challenges do not diminish the scale of its achievement. They underscore the complexity of transforming a nation of over one billion people. For Nigeria, China’s experience offers valuable lessons. First, poverty reduction must be treated as a strategic national priority rather than a campaign promise. Second, development requires long-term planning and policy continuity. Third, sustained investment in agriculture, infrastructure, education, and healthcare is essential. Fourth, institutions must be strengthened to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes. Finally, leadership must combine vision with disciplined execution. Nigeria is richly endowed with natural resources, entrepreneurial talent, and a youthful population.
What remains missing is a coherent and consistent development strategy that places national interest above politics. China’s transformation demonstrates that development is not a matter of luck. It is the outcome of clear priorities, effective institutions, and unwavering commitment. For countries still grappling with poverty and underdevelopment, China stands as compelling proof that when a nation confronts its challenges with strategic intent and collective discipline, extraordinary progress is possible.
Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi