₦airaland Forum

IamAyomide26:
Congratulations on your win!

Thank you. Congratulations too.

Congratulations. This is my first attempt and i got it after slepeless nights of prayers and anxiety. I was very anxious to the extent that i cannot manage my expectations, though i have a very strong profile. God`s grace!

Alhamdulillah. I made it to the final list-Germany. Congratulations everyone. I wish everyone the best guys.

Congratulations to all the awardees. The link is not going please. Why?

Biggest9ine:
Please can someone share the points breakdown cumulating to 100 points

Thanks in advance

SOP/Proposal for PhD
O level
First Degree/ Masters for PhD
Professional Memberships/Publications for PhD
Subjective criteria such as appearance, confidence and technical knowledge.

NB: only the panelists can share the exact breakdown of the points.

Find these worthy of sharing.

1- I have read many comments about Dr Usman Isyaku, his lower second-class degree, and questions about how he secured a PTDF scholarship. As someone who has served as a PTDF assessor for at least six years and only last month completed the assessment of another cohort of applicants, I can speak with authority on how the system works. PTDF scholarships are awarded through a point-based system in which degree classification is just one of many criteria that together add up to 100 points. The difference between a 2.1 and a 2.2 is a mere five-point advantage for the 2.1 holder. I have seen cases where a 2.2 graduate, with stronger grades in the five relevant O-level subjects, closed that gap completely. I have also seen first-class graduates, who start with a five-point advantage over 2.1 holders, end up looking like 2.1 or even 2.2 candidates because of weak O-level scores or because they failed to present other qualifications that carry points, such as relevant professional certifications. In contrast, some 2.2 holders come well-prepared with such certifications and other criteria that earn them marks. When every component is scored and added to reach 100 percent, starting with five points fewer than a 2.1 is far from a death sentence. A well-prepared 2.2 graduate can compete strongly, and often successfully, in this system.

2- I understand the points Dr. Usman Isyaku and Dr. Marzuq Ungogo are making about the importance of degree classifications and their value. I agree that if something is worth doing, it’s worth doing well, and if one can achieve an excellent degree, they should strive for it. Graduating with high honors is something you won’t regret. But it’s also important to recognize that success in life isn’t determined by excelling in just one area. Life is about balancing and mastering multiple variables that come our way. Those with more experience know this, which is why they encourage you to aim for excellence, like graduating with top marks. But if you don’t achieve that, they won’t judge you harshly. Instead, they’ll remind you that there’s much more to life than a degree grade. Life is complex, and to negotiate it successfully, it’s important to move beyond binary thinking and embrace a more nuanced perspective.
As other commenters have pointed out, the primary advantage of graduating with an excellent first degree lies at the beginning of your career, particularly if you intend to compete using that degree. Most people aim to leverage their academic achievements in a competitive context. While life is undoubtedly complex, when it comes to competition, whether for jobs, scholarships, or other opportunities, people tend to trust those with proven records of success. For example, in applying for academic grants, researchers often highlight their past successes to reassure grant committees that they can be trusted to deliver again, as they have in the past. Although we acknowledge that there are many ways to evaluate potential success, measurable achievements are often favored over those that are harder to quantify. This brings to mind another experience I had earlier this year while serving as a panelist interviewing candidates for a postgraduate scholarship abroad. The last candidate we interviewed that day, who was older and more mature, had plenty of time to engage in a discussion with us after the formal interview. When we asked if he had any questions, he inquired why he had failed to secure the scholarship despite applying multiple times, his current application being the fourth in a row.
I explained to him that my role in the selection process was limited. I was there as a resource person to interview and score candidates fairly, but the final decision rested with the organization that invited me. But I offered to discuss potential reasons why he might not have secured the scholarship despite his numerous attempts, acknowledging that he was skilled and experienced in his field. I pointed out that the challenge with point-based systems is that they only allow you to demonstrate your capabilities beyond your credentials only to a certain extent. Most scholarships are designed to award candidates based on a combination of objective criteria, such as previous successes, which are largely fixed and can’t be easily altered, and subjective evaluations during the interview. Typically, it’s these objective criteria, like degree grades, that get you through the door for an interview. Once you’re in the room, you have the chance to prove yourself, but it’s mostly your academic record that opens that door in the first place. Of course, there are instances where you might be invited to an interview with an average grade. But even in such cases, it can be challenging to succeed. The criteria that carry the most weight are often those that are difficult to change, like your academic grades, rather than the more subjective aspects like your confidence, appearance, or enthusiasm.
Returning to the candidate who asked why he hadn’t secured a scholarship after multiple attempts, I explained that his situation posed certain challenges. He graduated with a lower second-class honors degree in engineering, had average O’level grades in the relevant subjects, and came from a highly competitive state in Nigeria. Given these factors, his chances of winning the scholarship were limited. Even the most generous panelists would struggle to score him above 70 percent based on the standard weighting criteria. In a competitive setting, especially in point-based systems, success often hinges on presenting qualifications that are ideally difficult to attain and set you apart from others. It’s about giving the selection panel a clear reason to choose you over another candidate. I mentioned that I had seen younger candidates from his state, some in their early 20s, who had achieved first-class degrees and near-perfect O’level grades. Such academic records naturally set them apart from the outset.
I asked him to consider his chances of competing favorably with other candidates from his state if only the top four or five performers were to be selected. He lamented that when he graduated from secondary school in the 90s, their WASSC scores genuinely reflected their knowledge, as there was little to no exam malpractice. He even took his exams under the supervision of a policeman, which earned him a place in a top-rated public university, where he graduated with a lower second-class degree in engineering. He expressed frustration that many young people with near-perfect grades today might not be able to defend those grades, a point I partially agreed with. But I reminded him that the reality of point-based systems is that they prioritize the numbers themselves, not the circumstances under which they were achieved. The system is focused on measurable results, regardless of how we might feel about the fairness of those results. This means that when a candidate presents a first-class degree in engineering from a university that I, as a panelist, might consider less reputable or less rigorous, I am still obligated to award them full points for that first-class degree. Similarly, if another candidate from a highly reputable university presents an average grade, I must still assign the points corresponding to that average grade, as dictated by the scoring criteria.
At the end of my conversation with that candidate, I encouraged him not to lose hope regarding the scholarship. But a key takeaway from that experience is the importance of not delaying in pursuing opportunities. It’s often beneficial to move forward with your peers rather than waiting too long before seeking certain opportunities. I believe that although he had average grades, those grades might have been sufficient to secure the scholarship if he had applied 15 or 20 years ago, when first-class degrees and near-perfect O’levels were less common. This supports Dr. Adamu Muhammad’s observation that competition has become incredibly tough. You might score more than 80 percent on an assessment and still not be selected because others have outperformed you. There has never been a time in history when competition has been this intense. In point-based systems, which are often the metrics used for evaluation, grades can either work in your favor or against you. But we must always remember that life is far more complex than simply accumulating grades.
~Dr. MD Aminu

Sugeknight2:
I know everyone is anxious. Just try and focus on something else to avoid having high blood pressure over PTDF. Once they send out email, everyone will know. The news will be everywhere. All the best Everyone

You are right. But it is not something to be joking with. The guy knows very well that a lot of people are anxious to received the emails, why would he played such expensive joke at this crucial moment. You can`t use emotions to play franks. Know this abeg. If it is released then so be it! No body will change your destiny. Likewise, if your name is their wallahi no body can remove it and vice-versa! So guys let`s keep our fingers crossed and stay positive.

MEERLEEQ:
Sit down, there is a particular agent for one of the universities (whose name I will hold), he/she has access to the list and their contacts when they have been approved (but pending release). He calls the winners and try to convince them with an admission if they are yet to get any at their option schools. I say sit down, stop speaking under misapprehension of how these things work.

You said " one of the universities". Even if, that is if, your speculation is true, how could this applies to all UK applicants since they may likely not choose that particular university in question? Oga sit down abeg. This is just another unnecessary speculation.

MEERLEEQ:
If you are for UK MSc and no agent has called you by now, your chance of winning is almost zero. know this and know peace.

This is not true. UK insitutuitions don`t have a slice of idea about the list of the awardees and neither PTDF nor anybody reveals the list to them. They only get to know you when you apply. That is why there is a flexibility in the sense that the Fund accepts admission from any affliated UK insitutuition in as much as you have been awarded to study in the UK. It is just like other scholarship bodies. What we need is prove of fund to present to the insittuitions. Your claim is misleading and it reeks ignorance of how PTDF operates.

Frankrealist:
For real, PTDF breaks hearts like shells. It's the understanding that at least 95% of those that were interviewed will not win that can make all the difference. While it is important to have faith and keep hope alive, it's also important to be realistic and manage your expectations. Everybody dey pray, but no be everybody wey dey pray go still win.

Exactly, bro. PTDF is very competative in nature. Only few will be selected. And one can never presume his success even when the panelists commented that he did well. The final verdict rested with the Fund! Fingers crossed.

KleverTrez:
I have never been this anxious all my life because of PTDF scholarship

Don`t panic, bro. Just keep praying and be positive. Also, given by the nature of the competition, try as much as you can to limit your expectations and diversify. Anything can heppen oo. This is what i have been telling myself immediately after the interview.