Meritocracy in quota system

We find it convenient to extend our heart-felt apologies to the Head of State in particular and the proponents of Quota system in general for the bashing that they have got for merely expressing an informed opinion.

For instance, in an attempt to quash the president’s speech at a press conference that was held on the eve of the Mothers Day at the State House in Lilongwe, in one of the memos that were pasted on the Chancellor College notice boards, the following uncalled for statement was included and we quote, “It is unfathomable intellectual torture, we deem, for the whole head of state to stoop so low and make such a divisive, misleading and emotive statements on quota system.”

We find this statement not only derogatory, but also lacking sobriety of mind and a colossal lack of objectivity. We pro-quota students find this unfortunate and not befitting intellectuals who claim to be a “mouthpiece of justice and custodian of intellectualism”.

We extend apologies on their behalf on this perceived lack of objectivity and their emotional-laden way of argumentation. However, we acknowledge their right to expression.  As one scholar once said; the difficult phase in life is not when no person understands you, it is when you don’t understand yourself. We therefore implore them to exercise patience and have a spirit of accommodation for in heterogeneity of opinion humanity finds a spirit of understanding.

ARGUMENTS FOR QUOTA SYSTEM

Merit and Quota not Mutually Exclusive

People who have vehemently waged war against the Quota system of selecting students into public tertiary learning institutions have deliberately chosen to provide a distorted picture of Quota. Indeed, they have given an erroneous impression that Quota and merit are mutually exclusive systems. Yet the reality is that these two systems are not mutually exclusive.

The nature of the yet to be re-introduced Quota system is the one in which Quota will be implemented within the framework of merit. Merit because those people that will benefit from Quota will not be every Jim and Jack, but rather, deserving students with a minimum of six credits including English at MSCE and not less than 60% score at University Entrance Examinations. People against Quota should therefore stop equating Quota to non-merit. The two are not at polar ends.

As an extension to the above point, the cry that Quota will bring “mbuli” to public universities is baseless, false and fallacious. Students with six credits and a score of 60% at UEE are not by any measure “mbuli”. Cognizant must be taken of the fact that students who meet the above requirements are qualified, deserving and intellectually fit for university education.

Ask the faculty Deans and Heads of departments if students who win academic awards for excellent performance are exclusively those who score an aggregate score of six points. Far from it! Note that there can only be more deserving and more qualified students when all factors except intelligence and hard work were equal.

Some people have suggested the extension of public universities, to create more space as a solution to this age long historical imbalances in education. However, we feel that even if the intake into the country’s public universities is increased, Quota system still has to be employed because the same imbalances will still be there if Quota system is not applied. The same reasoning applies to the issue of increasing learning resources as some quarters have further proposed.

The necessity of quota system can better be appreciated in the following analogy: A parent who lets one of his two children die because the available food can only and adequately feed one child is wanting in rationality and lacking in wisdom. Being wise and rational, the parent would share the available food to both children.

In the same way, a wise and rational government would introduce Quota in a situation like we are currently in, in order to promote all corners of the country in attaining tertiary education–the education level that is very much important in the development of a country.

THE BIBLE AND THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ACCESS TO RESOURCES: ITS APPLICABILITY TO QUOTA SYSTEM.

MUMMURING

Going into the Bible on Acts 6v/s1: Grecian widows were neglected while Hebrew widows enjoyed lion’s share. Apostles did not say we are all Christians; let us leave this as it is. No! They found a way of ensuring equitable distribution. Equally, there are murmurings today in Malawi

According to Muula in the book titled Malawi’s Lost Decade on page 101, there was a complaint that teachers from the northern region worked lazily in other regions other than the north.

On page 6 of the weekend nation of the 29th of November 2008 it was established that out of 1200 students at Chanco in 1986, 800 came from one region because of Mr X at MANEB. In 1988 (the year when Quota system was first introduced) Ngwazi DR. H. Kamuzu Banda noticed this problem and removed the architect of the cause from MANEB .

And today the so called merit system used by the UNIMA is void of equitableness. One region which is smallest as compared to the rest is getting the lion’s share than the others. His Excellency the president of the republic of Malawi, Ngwazi Dr. Bingu wa Mutharika noted the problem and has enough statistics that the problem really exists and this is according to His excellency’s remarks during a press briefing that was conducted on the eve of the mother’s day. He pointed out that enrollment at Mzuzu University has even gone as far as having

Students from the central region   29%

Students from the southern region  33%

Students from the Northern region 38%.

Just like the apostles who found a solution of equitable access to curb the murmurings that arose in the food distribution, the president has thought it imperative to emulate the Biblical example by introducing Quota which is the means that can bring equitable access in the scarce spaces that are available  in the tertiary learning institutions of Malawi. In this realm, Equitable Access to Tertiary Education must therefore be made a government’s policy to address this existing problem.

ON QUOTA AND DIVISIONS IN THE COUNTRY

It is questionable that the people who have the welfare of others at heart would talk of divisions because of the introduction of equitable selection system. This lacks an explanation as to how the system will stir divisions. We are wondering if this is practical. This very same system was introduced in Dr. Banda’s era. There were no regional or tribal divisions. When it was booted out by the court, there were people who were for it, but there were no conflicts. How special is this issue for this year to cause divisions in this country?

Those who are challenging the system should come out in the open citing specific examples of the countries that experienced divisions due to Quota system in the distribution of national resources. Our general feeling is that it is not strange for people of diverse values to have two lines of thoughts and it does not always mean that when others’ ideas are not implemented, divisions will occur. It then just shows how egotistic the other side is, that it cannot accommodate other peoples’ values.

ON THE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS

It is very true that part of the long-term solution to the problem is by increasing the resources. However, to every person who has managerial skills, considers the availability of resources before pursuing any goal. It is clear in the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) that countries should work at reducing poverty by the year 2015. One of the strategies employed in the MGDS to reach this goal is to increase access to education to all.

When, looking at our resources though, against the demands of our country we understand that that is hardly attainable, as such we view the system as a short-term solution, as we are waiting for our country to accumulate enough resources. It is very sad that some people with retrogressive minds would like to frustrate this development.

The argument for ‘merit’ also overlooks the reliability of our testing instruments i.e. MSCE and UEE and also the situations where most of the children come from. It is questionable if always the outcome of those examinations is a real reflection of one’s ability. It is also questionable if children of the same IQ, one coming from a disadvantaged home and the other coming from advantage home, would perform equally at MSCE and UEE. Performance is determined by a number of factors for example, availability of resources, motivation and the conditions present during the time of examination.

For example, let us say there is someone who has been learning from a rural community secondary school that has no or only few of the unqualified teachers, books and a laboratory. Then there is another student who has all the resources at his disposal. Would these perform equally if they wrote the same examinations? Or would one conclude that the one with a lot of resources is more intelligent than the other because he/she has outperformed the resource poor one? Is this the merit that is being fought for then? Then can one use that as a basis for distributing scarce resources? To us equitable selection into the universities is the solution that government can employ to equitably distribute the resources.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The government should re-introduce the quota system to address the existing imbalances in access to tertiary education.

The government should also consider increasing the proposed minimum of ten(10) students to twenty(20) per district so that it is much closer to the true sense of the word “equitable”.

If government finds that there is still some resistance from other quarters as is the case now, we request that the state President His Excellence Ngwazi DR. Bingu wa Mutharika should call for a national referendum on the matter. This should be done after providing enough information to the public on the merits and demerits of the Quota system and the same of the so-called merit system.

It is common knowledge that the law must serve man and not man serving the law. In the same vein, if there is a provision in our constitution that is making it difficult for the implementation of “equitable access to tertiary education” it must be repealed. Let us not be slaves of our own legislations.

The so called merit system is applicable in countries where all schools are well furnished and well equipped with better and adequate resources unlike in Malawi where this is not the case at all. The competing ground is deeply unleveled; therefore Quota should come to level the ground.

CONCLUSION

It is a discernible fact that “merit system” has never ever been meritocratic enough to be called merit. Meritocracy in education has been criticized everywhere in the world for creating social inequalities and reproducing social inequalities and cannot be entertained in the country like Malawi.

In our own understanding, merit would mean considering the grades only, irrespective of gender, disabilities and other issues. The fact that these issues are taken into consideration, the whole meaning of meritocracy is distorted. However, these considerations are very much important if the country is to develop.

We believe that Quota system that aims at addressing imbalances in the distribution of scarce resources is not bad. However, if some people championing the idea have a partisan agenda, then they are distorting the spirit of quota system, which in its true sense is framed under “positive discrimination”, just like gender policies that argue for deliberate efforts to uplift women.

We are sorry to learn that some of the arguments against Quota system are baseless, narrow and subjective. If we argue out this case with regions, tribes, districts, and not Malawi in mind, we end up labeling one another regionalistic or tribalistic.

Having said all these, we are intellectually convinced that quota system is more meritocratic than the so-called merit. We therefore call upon the government to implement the quota system now and today because further delays would continue inconveniencing the university academic calendar.

On behalf of the pro-Quota Chancellor College Students Community signed: McLoud Nkhata, McDonald Nkhuwa, Cydric Damala, Hamphreys  Jailos, John Kathewera, Henry Chizimba, Ernest Zoya,  James Makwacha, Promise Amuli, Frank Mkumba, Yelesani B. Benson and Veronica M. Jere

 Email This Post