1992 - JAMB English Past Questions and Answers - page 16

  The preparation which a study of the humanities can provide stems from three observations about education in our world of accelerating social and technological change. First, with the rate of change, we cannot hope to train our student for specific technologies. That kind of vocational education is obsolescent. By the time the specific training will have been completed, the world will have moved on.

  If our education consists of narrow training, we will not be prepared to change. Second and paradoxically, what our student desire from their education is preparation for specific careers – business, engineering, medicine, computer programming and the like, but we will not be able to train them for a life-long career. Their confronting the depressed job market gives our students a certain anxiety, but the solution they seek in vocational training is not sufficient. Third, we sense in our students a narrow materialism, with the good life defined in terms of material comforts. Education then means learning to do a job which will make money. I see in this definition a limiting sense of what education and thus life offer, a definition which excludes joy and meaning. Our narrow approach to the study of the humanities responds to these three related problems. In our changing, yet narrow world, the teaching of the humanities finds one powerful justification – it teaches student how to think.

'We sense in our students a narrowing materialism' means that our students' concept of education is one that

  IF economists were a bit more modest, they would admit that no one knows exactly how many Nigerians there are. The National population Bureau estimated that there would be 116 million in 1986, but this figure was derived from projections based on the much disputed figures of the 1963 census, using an annual population growth rate that was at best a guess work. Notwithstanding that the margin of error could be as large as a plus 20 million; economists have still felt confident to speak of Nigeria’s per capita income, birth and mortality rates literacy rate and so on, as if they were quoting precise figures.

  So much Nigerians is determined on the basis of the population that the lack of accurate figures has a significantly adverse effect on policies. One obviously affected area is development planning, which for the lack of reliable data, frequently looks like an exercise in futility. An example of what happens is the country’s Universal Primary Education (UPE) scheme launched in 1976. Policy makers had expected, on the basis of the 1975/76 primary school enrolment of just fewer than 5 million, that they would not have to cope with much more than 6 million school children in the first year. But the enrolment in 1976/77 turned out to be 8.4 million rising to 10.1 million the following year. The unanticipated cost of catering for the large number was the main cause of the collapse of that worth scheme after only four years.

  Population also plays an important role in revenue allocation, specifically in the sharing of the states’ portion of the Federation Account, some percentage of which is based on population or population-related factors. Because of the contentious nature of the subject, the compromise has been to estimate based on the 1963 census figures, even when such a move produces ridiculous situations. It is for all these reasons that the Babangida Administration’s effort to ascertain the nation’s population is such a worthwhile venture.

It would be more realistic of economist to

  IF economists were a bit more modest, they would admit that no one knows exactly how many Nigerians there are. The National population Bureau estimated that there would be 116 million in 1986, but this figure was derived from projections based on the much disputed figures of the 1963 census, using an annual population growth rate that was at best a guess work. Notwithstanding that the margin of error could be as large as a plus 20 million; economists have still felt confident to speak of Nigeria’s per capita income, birth and mortality rates literacy rate and so on, as if they were quoting precise figures.

  So much Nigerians is determined on the basis of the population that the lack of accurate figures has a significantly adverse effect on policies. One obviously affected area is development planning, which for the lack of reliable data, frequently looks like an exercise in futility. An example of what happens is the country’s Universal Primary Education (UPE) scheme launched in 1976. Policy makers had expected, on the basis of the 1975/76 primary school enrolment of just fewer than 5 million, that they would not have to cope with much more than 6 million school children in the first year. But the enrolment in 1976/77 turned out to be 8.4 million rising to 10.1 million the following year. The unanticipated cost of catering for the large number was the main cause of the collapse of that worth scheme after only four years.

  Population also plays an important role in revenue allocation, specifically in the sharing of the states’ portion of the Federation Account, some percentage of which is based on population or population-related factors. Because of the contentious nature of the subject, the compromise has been to estimate based on the 1963 census figures, even when such a move produces ridiculous situations. It is for all these reasons that the Babangida Administration’s effort to ascertain the nation’s population is such a worthwhile venture.

Precise national population figures are required in order to

  IF economists were a bit more modest, they would admit that no one knows exactly how many Nigerians there are. The National population Bureau estimated that there would be 116 million in 1986, but this figure was derived from projections based on the much disputed figures of the 1963 census, using an annual population growth rate that was at best a guess work. Notwithstanding that the margin of error could be as large as a plus 20 million; economists have still felt confident to speak of Nigeria’s per capita income, birth and mortality rates literacy rate and so on, as if they were quoting precise figures.

  So much Nigerians is determined on the basis of the population that the lack of accurate figures has a significantly adverse effect on policies. One obviously affected area is development planning, which for the lack of reliable data, frequently looks like an exercise in futility. An example of what happens is the country’s Universal Primary Education (UPE) scheme launched in 1976. Policy makers had expected, on the basis of the 1975/76 primary school enrolment of just fewer than 5 million, that they would not have to cope with much more than 6 million school children in the first year. But the enrolment in 1976/77 turned out to be 8.4 million rising to 10.1 million the following year. The unanticipated cost of catering for the large number was the main cause of the collapse of that worth scheme after only four years.

  Population also plays an important role in revenue allocation, specifically in the sharing of the states’ portion of the Federation Account, some percentage of which is based on population or population-related factors. Because of the contentious nature of the subject, the compromise has been to estimate based on the 1963 census figures, even when such a move produces ridiculous situations. It is for all these reasons that the Babangida Administration’s effort to ascertain the nation’s population is such a worthwhile venture.

‘The contentious nature of the subject’ refers to the

  IF economists were a bit more modest, they would admit that no one knows exactly how many Nigerians there are. The National population Bureau estimated that there would be 116 million in 1986, but this figure was derived from projections based on the much disputed figures of the 1963 census, using an annual population growth rate that was at best a guess work. Notwithstanding that the margin of error could be as large as a plus 20 million; economists have still felt confident to speak of Nigeria’s per capita income, birth and mortality rates literacy rate and so on, as if they were quoting precise figures.

  So much Nigerians is determined on the basis of the population that the lack of accurate figures has a significantly adverse effect on policies. One obviously affected area is development planning, which for the lack of reliable data, frequently looks like an exercise in futility. An example of what happens is the country’s Universal Primary Education (UPE) scheme launched in 1976. Policy makers had expected, on the basis of the 1975/76 primary school enrolment of just fewer than 5 million, that they would not have to cope with much more than 6 million school children in the first year. But the enrolment in 1976/77 turned out to be 8.4 million rising to 10.1 million the following year. The unanticipated cost of catering for the large number was the main cause of the collapse of that worth scheme after only four years.

  Population also plays an important role in revenue allocation, specifically in the sharing of the states’ portion of the Federation Account, some percentage of which is based on population or population-related factors. Because of the contentious nature of the subject, the compromise has been to estimate based on the 1963 census figures, even when such a move produces ridiculous situations. It is for all these reasons that the Babangida Administration’s effort to ascertain the nation’s population is such a worthwhile venture.

The reference to ‘Universal Primary Education’ in this passage is significant because it shows