Quota System (QS) as presently practiced is a disservice to our collective future.
It is a disturbing strategy, sustainability wise, and we may never know the cost GDP-wise to our dear nation.
Have we asked?
Why should Mr A. get the access to opportunities after failing to meet a criteria set for Mr B.
Are we assuming that Mr A. lacks the intrinsic capacity to do as well as Mr B? Should those responsible not instead be compelled to do the needful, by for example providing Mr A, with the enabling environment to allow him achieve his/her full potential?
The failure to demand the same entry performance has only encouraged an inertia on the part of responsible authorities to do the needful in affected regions.
Are we saying that Mr A’s circumstance can’t be so adjusted as to shift his/her performance level to the desirably competitive level?
One of the achievements of QS system is that it has fostered a disposition in certain regions that, you don’t have to do the needful, your place (admission placement) is guaranteed.
Despite its attraction, this has meant standards for entry will continue to demotivate even some gifted ‘applicants’ to strive less for higher performance. Some will thus put less than their best efforts, assured of a win even before a shot leaves the “starter pistol”.
We have by this QS- Education policy, weakened the foundation upon which their educational achievements looking forward are to be built.
If the proponents had their way, they will, for example posit that, in a football match played by opposing ends from different regions, perhaps 1 goal should be counted as 3 for Mr A, and 2 goals 1 for Mr B etc. since their performance potential varies. Sadly, even in the local football games, this logic is unacceptable.
As such everyone tries to give their best, resulting in better collective output.
We all agree that brain work is equally as important as physical work, for after conjuring up ideas, we get to work to put them in place.
Indeed, both ideas and physical work output can be calibrated on performance scales easily.
Sadly, while policy makers pretend that we can’t apply this logic to the educational quota systems, we prefer to dispense admission slots based on demotivating QS, lowering the bar unfairly to soothe poorly thought-through policies of a few privileged drivers who failed to think global when it mattered most.
I posit that, the day these quotas are dispensed of, that is when those responsible will be compelled to do the needful. Example provide enabling environment for those in their region to break free from a inclination to perform below their true potential.
Sadly, the counter self implosive argument may be that, after years of QS, the policy has not resulted in an equalisation. The policy drivers are either too afraid or completely lack the imagination required to review this policy comprehensively, and demand for globally competitive standards North- South- East or West.
Should this happen, the pool of thousands of youths who serve as cheap recruitment sources for political thugs or non-state actors framework will dry up gradually.
220 million people, 220 million dreams, 220 million potentials, yet we stiffle these with a policy that was designed for a peri-colonial Nigeria.
Sadly, we will have sentiments supporting 20 to 50 more years, if we continue with feeble arguments that reveal how laid back we truly are about competing @ the BRICSoid level.