By Fathiu jimoh
When Abdulganiyu Halimat received a message from a friend that the GST 214 results had been released, she felt no fear. Calm and confident, she opened her student portal that afternoon, expecting relief. Instead, she froze. An “F” stared back at her beside GST 214 (Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution), the course she believed she had passed comfortably.
Now a 300-level Islamic Studies student, Halimat says failure never crossed her mind. She attended lectures, submitted all assignments, and participated actively in every group work. Her Continuous Assessment score stood at 28 out of 40.
“I felt empty. I was with my mother when my friend told me the results were out. I didn’t even fear checking. I never imagined an F,” Halimat told this reporter quietly.
For Halimat, and hundreds of other students at Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto (UDUS), GST 214 has grown into more than a compulsory General Studies course. It has become a source of anxiety, academic delay, financial pressure, and emotional distress, raising serious concerns about assessment practices, course delivery, and institutional accountability.
A Compulsory Course with Unusual Failure Pattern
GST 214 is taken by all 200-level undergraduates, regardless of discipline. Designed to promote national integration, peacebuilding, and critical thinking, the course draws content from conflict resolution, Nigerian diversity, and current affairs.
However, in every academic session, the course records an unusually high number of failures across faculties. Interviews conducted by Digest Press reveal a pattern of recurring complaints: Multiple conflicting handouts, inconsistent explanations across departments, limited feedback after assessments, technical failures during online tests, and strict attendance policies many say are poorly communicated.
“I Did Everything Right—So Where Did I Fail?”
Halimat’s disappointment went beyond the grade itself; it was intensified by the complete lack of clarity surrounding how the result was determined.
“I studied the handouts, performed well in my Continuous Assessment, and complied with every requirement. Seeing that result made me question my own efforts. It felt as though everything I did was ignored,” she lamented.
Her experience mirrors a common complaint among students taking the course. Many say they are denied the opportunity to review their marked scripts or understand where they went wrong, leaving them without guidance or a formal system of academic feedback.
When Technology Becomes Examiner
Sulaiman M., a 300-level Political Science student, raised concerns about the process that produced his result, insisting that his failure was not due to lack of preparation but technical challenges during the assessment.
He explained that the online platform malfunctioned repeatedly while he was taking the test. Despite reporting the issue, he said no corrective action was taken. “The problem was the system, not my performance,” Sulaiman stated.
Although he scored 20 out of 40 in the test, his final result was recorded as an E grade. He described the outcome as disheartening, noting that he attended lectures consistently and even shared study materials with classmates.
“I never expected this kind of result,” he said. “Does this mean I scored just 20 out of 60 in the exam? It was deeply painful.”
More Victims, Same Story
For some undergraduates, failure in GST 214 is not a one-time setback but a recurring academic burden that continues to resurface year after year.
Aishat Kamaldeen, a student of Sociology, is among those caught in this cycle. Having registered for the course twice, she says she remains uncertain about the exact reasons behind her repeated failures.
“I genuinely don’t understand what I keep missing. There is no feedback, no correction, and no explanation. You simply see the result, accept it, and register again,” she explained.
The course has also become a long-running struggle for Lukuman Sodiq Tunde, a final-year student in the Faculty of Education, whose attempt to complete GST 214 has stretched from his 200 level to the edge of graduation.
“When I saw the result, I broke down. I believed I would have settled this course long ago. Now my biggest fear is spillover. This one subject has robbed me of peace and kept me in constant worry,” said Mr. Sodiq.
GST Division Pushes Back
Responding to the allegations, the Director of the GST Division, Dr. Shadat, rejected claims that students are being unfairly graded, instead attributing the failures to students’ conduct.
According to him, the division has fulfilled its responsibilities by providing all required course materials. “The handouts and study guides for Conflict and Peace Studies were made available. Every question in the tests and examinations is drawn directly from those materials.”
Dr. Shadat identified poor lecture attendance as the major factor behind the high failure rate, noting that lecturers frequently report near-empty classrooms. “If students are absent from lectures, how can they be expected to succeed?” he asked.
He also emphasized that adherence to academic regulations plays a role, explaining that students who do not meet the 75 percent attendance requirement are barred from participating in assessments.
“Failures are recorded every year, but the figures have dropped by nearly 40 percent,” he added. “Ultimately, the issue comes down to students’ level of commitment.”