Silas Reuben

National Universities Commission (NUC), the government regulatory body for the nation’s universities on such matters as academic programme accreditation, granting approval for all higher degree programmes, ensuring quality of all academic programmes and other related issues geared toward maintaining educational standards in our universities has raised the stakes for lecturers.

This year, the commission announced a new policy which if properly implemented will have a profound impact not only on our universities, but also in the perception of the international academic community.

The policy which has been hailed by several stakeholders in our educational system, sets the year 2009 as the target date for university lecturers who hitherto do not possess Ph.D degrees to do so, if they wish to continue teaching or be designated as tutors.

For keen watchers of the Ivory Towers, this may not necessarily jolt anyone because this is a policy which time was long in coming. For some of the university lecturers, however, there may be a tinge of the unanticipated, at least for those who may lose their accustomed title of lecturer for tutor.

The policy has attracted several comments in the media with some criticizing it as unnecessary, citing reputable universities in other climes where there are no such requirements. Others have also accused the NUC of unilateral policy pronouncement without regard to the peculiar demands and dynamics of our university system as it affects staff development.

Perhaps, this is the commission’s own version of consolidation (a la Professor Soludo) as the policy would probably shrink the pool of university teachers considering the likelihood that some may abandon teaching and return to the classrooms students to pursue the degree considering the year 2009 is almost done. Some have argued that designating non-Ph.D holders as tutors could be de-motivating and counter-productive given that the title has been part of our university system for a long time.

But what could have informed the new policy? Perhaps, it be might be reasonable to speculate that this was necessitated by the need to produce some uniform standard across all universities in the country and may over time, become the status quo for university teachers and the university system alike. The policy may also be intended to nudge current Ph.D students who have been dawdling in completing their work to finish such programmes as the year 2009 closes in.

We may also extrapolate that the policy is probably a tacit indictment of the quality of teaching that the students receive since the teacher can deliver no more than what he or she possesses? Some of the lecturers as guardians of our university’s values and ethics have compromised on several fronts; showing inadequate commitment to teaching and research and thus cannot be completely exculpated from the problems of poor quality of our present day graduates.

It may also be seen as a deliberate effort on the part of the NUC to push the Ivory Towers to improve the quality of their academic manpower and thus earn their respect and prestige as citadels of teaching, learning and research. Without doubt, the quality of a university’s academic staff among other factors form a strong yardstick for ranking the university and its programmes not only in the country in which the school is domiciled but also in the international academic arena

A Ph.D degree fundamentally equips the holder with research competence and capability since the programme is largely research based, and the researcher is expected to come up with something de novo at the end of the research work. But would the possession of a Ph.D necessarily translate into a better quality of teaching and ipso-facto an improvement in the quality of our university students? The answer would be yes, but not absolute if enabling factors such as university basic infrastructural facilities, relevant textbooks, to mention but a few remain in their deplorable state.

If a university with its dilapidated library, laboratory, inadequate classrooms, epileptic electricity and water supply, exacerbated by secret cult activities and incessant lecturers’ strike churns out, say 50 Ph.D holders in 2009; that effort could still translate into more competent teachers but would the improved teachers’ academic attainment reflect on the students studying in such a blighted environment as described above, considering that teaching and learning in a conducive environment are inextricably intertwined? Thus, this policy cannot achieve its desired objective in isolation. Succinctly put, the policy objective must be to improve the teacher so as to impact on the students.

The NUC, as a central pillar in formulating policies for the nation’s universities, must take cognisance of the asphyxiating academic environment in which our schools operate especially as it affects higher education. A policy on higher education manpower improvement must also include ways we can attract Nigerians abroad with Ph.Ds into our university system and stem the emigration of the best brains.

The past fifteen years has witnessed an unprecedented increase in the number of universities in the country. Many had shuddered at how the NUC granted some of the approvals when even a cursory on-looker can observe that some of the schools do not even possess the requisite academic manpower. With nearly ninety universities nationwide, has the NUC suddenly realized that perhaps, quality has been compromised on the altar of proliferation?

Take, for instance, some of the states where (existing federal universities in those states could still absorb more applicants), critics have accused the NUC of pandering to some political whims of the governors in granting approvals for the establishment of state university even when it is apparent that those states are ill-equipped to fund higher education .Some of the private universities do not far better either. However, he states counter that the schools are established to cater for the educational needs of their people. Establishing several universities in the country will require massive capital injection complemented by highly qualified academic manpower in order to position our schools for global competition

The federal and state governments; universities and corporate bodies must form a lasting partnership to fund and support the dream of 2009. The Ph.D seeker can be assisted by ways of scholarships, grants or even education loans guaranteed by the government with improvements in our research facilities. According to the commission, the Special Doctoral Scheme (SDS) instituted in 2003 was designed to address the acute shortage of teachers in critical areas of national manpower needs.

In any case, we must commend the NUC in its current crusade to improve the quality of the nation’s universities’ academic staff. This paper, however, makes a case for an extension of the target year of 2009. The focus should not necessarily be on a target date per se, but more on how the Ph.D seeker can be assisted by the nation’s stakeholders in education to acquire the golden fleece.