By Fawaz Balogun

After nearly four academic sessions of operating on an 11-week lecture calendar, the University of Ibadan is returning to a 13-week schedule. Although many students have welcomed the decision as a sign that the university is gradually restoring normalcy after years of disruptions, one important question remains: does adding two more weeks genuinely improve the quality of education, or is it simply another compromise on the long road back to academic normalcy?

The answer lies beyond the number of weeks on the academic calendar. A quality university education is not measured solely by how long students spend in classrooms, but by how effectively that time is used. Academic calendars provide the structure for teaching and learning, but their success ultimately depends on how faithfully institutions implement them. This is why the University of Ibadan’s return to a 13-week lecture schedule deserves both commendation and critical scrutiny.

This debate must also be viewed against the benchmark set by the National Universities Commission (NUC), which recommends a minimum of 15 weeks for each academic semester. Of this period, 12 to 14 weeks are expected to be devoted to active teaching and coursework, while at least one week is reserved for revision before examinations. Yet, years of disruptions have made it difficult for many Nigerian universities, including the University of Ibadan, to consistently meet this standard, even while operating within the BMAS and, more recently, the CCMAS curriculum frameworks.

It is important to understand why the lecture calendar was shortened in the first place. Between the disruptions caused by the pandemic and repeated industrial actions by the Academic Staff Union of Universities, universities across Nigeria struggled with interrupted academic calendars.

ALSO READ: The Wages of Industrial Strike in Our Universities 

While students spent months at home, universities in Nigeria struggled to maintain their planned schedules. Several universities implemented various measures to meet the demand for admission. For instance, some managements cancelled an academic session to clear backlogs and allow two sets of JAMB entrants to merge into a single calendar, while others adopted a condensed 15-week semester with a tight examination and marking turnaround.

However, what worked as an emergency measure should not be the ideal standard. University education is about more than completing a syllabus; it should develop critical thinking, encourage meaningful discussions, provide opportunities for practical learning, and give students enough time to understand complex concepts while preparing them for professional life.

Compressing lectures into a shorter period often means that students and lecturers are forced into a race against time. Classes become more intense, assignments and projects pile up, and final-year projects are not given enough time for completion. Furthermore, opportunities for reflection and independent study are reduced, leaving limited time for revision before semester examinations.

The return to 13 weeks is, therefore, a positive development. Two additional weeks may appear insignificant on paper, but they can make a considerable difference in pacing lectures, scheduling assessments, providing more time for assignments, and reducing the academic pressure on both students and lecturers. It reflects the university’s gradual departure from emergency measures toward a more sustainable academic calendar.

However, extending the lecture period alone will not automatically improve the quality of education. The effectiveness of any academic calendar depends largely on how well it is utilized. It has been observed over time in UI that lectures rarely begin in the first week of resumption. While some lecturers commence teaching promptly, others do not begin until several weeks into the semester. In some cases, courses are compressed into marathon classes shortly before examinations, with lecturers attempting to cover an entire semester’s syllabus within a few weeks. Such practices undermine the very purpose of extending the lecture calendar.

Even so, 13 weeks should not be regarded as the final destination. The NUC’s recommended academic calendar exists to ensure that universities have sufficient time for meaningful teaching, coursework, revision, and assessment without unnecessary haste. If the University of Ibadan truly hopes to strengthen its global reputation and produce graduates who are academically and professionally competitive, it should aspire to fully align with that standard whenever circumstances permit.

Beyond the extended lecture weeks, attention must be paid to how those weeks are utilized. Effective teaching, consistent class attendance, proper academic planning, and uninterrupted activities contribute just as much to educational quality as the length of the semester. Extending the calendar without improving these areas will produce little meaningful change.

It is worth noting that the additional weeks also come with shared responsibilities. For students, they present an opportunity rather than an excuse for complacency. A slightly longer semester provides more time to engage with course materials, participate in academic discussions, and prepare adequately for examinations instead of relying on last-minute reading.

For lecturers, it offers greater flexibility to pace courses properly and encourage interactive learning without unnecessary haste. University management, on its part, must ensure that academic calendars are faithfully implemented and that lectures commence as scheduled.

Among students, it is often said that “anybody who survives the ‘shege’ in UI can survive whatever life throws at them.” While the saying celebrates resilience, that resilience should not come at the expense of effective teaching and meaningful learning. Students deserve an education that challenges them intellectually without creating avoidable academic pressure.

Ultimately, the return to 13 weeks should be welcomed as genuine progress. It signals the university’s determination to move beyond the emergency adjustments imposed by national crises and restore a healthier academic calendar. Yet, progress should not be mistaken for completion.

The real measure of success is not the number of weeks on the timetable, but whether those weeks produce richer learning, better teaching, and graduates who are intellectually prepared for the future. Only then can the return to 13 weeks be regarded not merely as a numerical adjustment, but as a meaningful restoration of academic excellence.