I have read a lot of posts calling for the scrapping of the Joint Admission Matriculation Board or at the least, a remarking of the 2016 CBT exams. In this post, i'll seek to dissuade our minds from finger-pointing to identifying the root causes of the perceived irregularities and thereafter suggest solutions. Emphasis will be placed on a level playing field for all rather than the performance of JAMB, CBT centres or candidates.

WHY CBT?
Computer Based Tests was introduced by the Board to check a lot of irregularities in the examination process. Some of which are;
1. Result padding
2. Cheating
3. Delay in collation of results, etc

THE KEY PLAYERS
We've always known two of the key players to be JAMB (the umpire) and the candidates who sit for the exams. A third key player nobody seems to be mentioning are the CBT centres! Unfortunately, they play an equally important role as the Board itself and i'll explain my assertion.

For every exam, there is a marking scheme. What makes it even fairer with CBTs is that the answer always falls between a range of choices; A-E as the case may be and the software maps a candidates choice to the corresponding pre-set answer for each question. If there is a match, it allocates the appropriate point and doesn't otherwise. This takes away the human factor of favouritism while marking and all. So it's a clear path for every question, but here's the real problem: the technicalities involved!

Permit me to map features and responsibilities to players.
1. Provision of the CBT software - JAMB's responsibility.
2. Provision of the CBT hardware - JAMB + CBT centres (centres provided by JAMB cannot accommodate the number of candidates so they partner with private CBT centres).
3. Accreditation of CBT centres - JAMB's responsibility.
4. Preparation for exams - Candidates' responsibility.

By the grace of God, as a Technopreneur, I gathered a lot of information on JAMB's operation this year because I sought to invest in setting up a CBT centre. What I must acknowledge here is that JAMB had a largely successful accreditation process for CBT centres (at least across the locations I and my team monitored). Accreditation began quite early and was repeated 2-3 times across centres. Schools were also invited to be involved in a test-run of facilities for the exam.

But fast forward to the exam day, there were technical hitches experienced by both candidates and centre administrators at large. While I must admit that these problems can be avoided, I must also not fail to mention that sometimes even the most well-prepared can be left in disarray when dealing with technical equipment. But the million dollar question every reader wants an answer to is "WHO IS TO BLAME?"

I'm sorry to say, that approach is vague and non-constructive. If we look at it critically, the factors responsible for the irregularities can be identified but cannot be generalized as some of them are peculiar to certain identifiers hence a call for a complete cancellation or scrapping may be uncalled for and finger pointing would not proffer any way forward.

THE PROBLEMS
1. Many candidates were ill-prepared technically and academically. As important as the use of the CBT software is to passing, many candidates focused more on academic preparedness. For instance, we got a report that the use of the 'Enter' key at any point during the exam implied an immediate submission and end of that session. If true, how many candidates had the fore-knowledge?
2. Technical faults resulting from negligence of centre administrators and in some cases, faults that may be sudden and beyond every level of preparedness.

THE SOLUTION
1. JAMB
I believe every technical process should have an assessment mechanism and provision should be made to accommodate errors. For instance, where there was a failure of card readers in the previous election, substitutions were made and in some cases, the manual voter's register was referred to. In some cases, a rerun election was organised for inconclusive elections. These technical faults can spring up even after many test-runs. It is better we plan effectively to accommodate them if/when they occur.

I'm certain JAMB is in the habit of collating reports from her agents deployed to CBT centres and these reports contain a provision for technical complaints received. If these complaints can be substantiated on a general scale, then the entire results for that centre can be withdrawn and another CBT organised for the affected candidates at a different centre. Where only a few computers in a particular centre are faulty, they should be withdrawn. Candidates should not be asked to sit for their exams on them.

2. CANDIDATES/SCHOOLS
-Candidates should be registered to sit for JAMB exams in affiliation to a school (including non-students).
-On exam days, candidates should be accompanied to exam centres by the school's exam officer.
-In cases where candidates are asked to sit for their exams on faulty computers, they should immediately call the attention of their school exam officer who would ensure that their wards are not disadvantaged in anyway!

But hey, leave all the grammar of how things should be.... If a candidate did not arrive in a space bus from a school up the hill (like I never did), is he/she accorded the privilege of an advocate? Or is it Baba Shittu with his jumbo size pot-belly you'd expect to accompany you to JAMB exam hall?

I congratulate every successful candidate and sympathise with candidates whose efforts did not yield the expected results. We hope for a way out but meanwhile, DO NOT let anger and bitterness cloud your hearts, you will laugh eventually!

Cc: Lalasticlala, Richiez , olawalebabs , Fynestboi

problem is not that I made an error in handling my system. I'm suree many jambites were @ least computer literate enough to know how to answer the questions using either the keyboard or the mouse. Som tutorials even did mock CBT just to fully equip the students.


The bone of contention is we were not given our RIGHT SCORES.
The theories that seem to make sense are::-

1. Questions for Type A were erroneously marked with Answers for Type D

OR

2. JAMB purposely failed us on hearing about the bill passed by the Senate :- the one that makes a JAMB result eligible for a period of 3 years, which means no more ripoffs and unjust money-making for JAMB.

Whichever it is, we don't care. We don't want any 40 marks bonus, neither do we want them to lower the cutoff points.

All we want is for our exam scripts to be remarke

I sympathize with you. I understand that JAMB have admitted regrets for technical issues experienced and I agree with you that it doesn't do anyone any good if that's all they offer. I will join any properly channelled appeal for an intervention as we are talking about people's future here. I just think the bitterness that has accompanied most posts from disgruntled candidates is a little disturbing.

nice write up. but still........


#RemarkJamb2016

Zedicuszolan:
I am computer literate and I've worked as a typist in a business centre before. I also know PowerPoint and how to operate a computer back to back.

My problem is not that I made an error in handling my system. I'm almost certain than many jambites were at least computer literate enough to know how to answer the questions using either the keyboard or the mouse. Some tutorials even did mock CBT just to fully equip the students.


The bone of contention is we were not given our RIGHT SCORES.
How can I get 64 in English language?, am I mad or was I blindfolded before I sat for the exam? I can tell you the 5 questions I wasn't sure of in English from memory, just to prove that I was very sure of the other 95 questions.
In CRS I scored 52..Jesus Christ!!!!

The most probable theories that corresponds with the bane of Jamb's failure and wrongful administering of marks to students are:-

1. Questions for Type A were erroneously marked with Answers for Type D

OR

2. JAMB purposely failed us on hearing about the bill passed by the Senate :- the one that makes a JAMB result eligible for a period of 3 years, which means no more ripoffs & unjust money-making for JAMB.

Whichever it is, we don't care. We don't want any bonus 40 marks, neither do we want them to lower the cutoff points.

All we want is for our exam scripts to be remarked!!!!!!! Shikena.

If the highlighted text in your reply is true then we should not just demand a remark but some people should loose their jobs for such negligence!

qreatrix:


If the highlighted text in your reply is true then we should not just demand a remark but some people should loose their jobs for such negligence!

That's the only theory dat seems to make sense .i just met a guye meant to be the brightest science student in that tutorial I enrolled in early January, he scored 150. And there is this Timeleyin whom everyone knows as very playful and rarely excelled in classworks. This socalled Timileyin himself told me after his exams that he couldn't finish his English and Physics because he ran out of time and that he hopes to score at least 200. He ended up scoring 240.

i think you guys should report this case to popular blogs,newspaper and sites like lindaikeji,twitter,vanguard,sun newspaper even Tvc will not be bad.

please how can one post his article in nairaland.