FG Can’t Scrap ‘Irrelevant Courses’ in Universities, NASU, CONUA, NAPTAN Tell Government

The Federal Government’s plan to phase out what it described as “irrelevant courses” in Nigerian universities has sparked strong reactions from major stakeholders in the education sector, with unions and parents warning against hasty decisions that could damage the university system.

Minister of Education, Tunji Alausa, had announced during the “Renewed Hope Conversation” with students of the University of Abuja that government would begin removing courses considered to have little economic value, particularly some programmes in the social sciences.

According to him, the era of studying courses with limited job opportunities was ending, as the government was restructuring tertiary education to focus on industry-relevant and market-driven disciplines.

“We are phasing out some of these courses that are deceiving you, bringing you to school to learn things that we know won’t be needed,” Alausa said.

He added that students pursuing social science courses may face fewer job opportunities in the future and advised them against taking loans from the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) for programmes that may not guarantee employability.

The minister said government was prioritising courses that prepare students for entrepreneurship, innovation, and digital competitiveness, noting that Artificial Intelligence, data science, and digital skills would now be embedded across all levels of education.

He also disclosed that the Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Business Incubation Certification (EPIC) would become compulsory in tertiary institutions by 2027, ensuring that graduates leave school with entrepreneurial skills alongside academic qualifications.

However, the Congress of University Academics (CONUA), the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU), and the National Parent Teacher Association of Nigeria (NAPTAN) faulted the proposal, insisting that no course should be dismissed simply based on perceived market value.

National President of CONUA, Dr. Niyi Sunmonu, said the focus should be on reforming and modernising courses rather than scrpping them entirely.

“To my mind, what should be on the table is the evolution of courses to match current realities, not total scrapping. Education must adapt to changing times, but that adaptation should come through updating and modernising curricula, rather than discarding entire disciplines,” he said.

Sunmonu stressed that universities should integrate modern realities such as automation, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet of Things into existing programmes instead of eliminating them.

Similarly, NASU President, Dr. Makolo Hassan, questioned how the government intended to determine which courses were irrelevant, arguing that the relevance of a programme depends more on its curriculum than its title.

He warned against assuming that only professional courses like Law, Medicine, and Engineering were valuable, noting that many graduates of History, indigenous languages, and Religious Studies have excelled in society.

“The relevance or irrelevance of a course cannot be determined at face value, but rather by its curriculum and content,” Hassan said.

On its part, NAPTAN urged caution, saying the issue required proper consultation and expert scrutiny before any final action.

National President of NAPTAN, Alhaji Haruna Danjuma, said parents would not want to spend heavily on their children’s education only to later discover that such qualifications had been rendered useless by policy changes.

He said the association would first seek full details of the proposed reforms before taking a firm position.

Meanwhile, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) said it had not yet taken an official position, as it was still awaiting details of the specific courses to be affected.

The debate has continued to generate concern across the education sector, especially among stakeholders in the humanities and social sciences, who fear that narrowing university education to only technical and vocational disciplines could weaken academic diversity and national intellectual development.