Educational sciences programs train teachers, administrators, and school counselors who are charged with the responsibility of preparing students. It is important to have committed teachers and education leaders that ably instruct students and prepare them to contribute to economic development and productive activities. If school leaders begin careers without embracing the choice of being a teacher, administrator, or school counselor, it is possible that the energy, attention, and professionalism required to educate the youth will be wanting, with potential consequences for student success and the society at large. In short, there will be a cascade of disinterest from school leaders to students.

It is quite common that those who pursue education majors do so through no choice of their own. There are many reasons for this. Educators often underperform their peers in income obtainment. Moreover, school leaders frequently suffer early burnout from the increased demand for performance without the requisite support. This has led to the continuous decline in people choosing educational disciplines. Are university admissions policies thwarting student choices and building a disinterested workforce for tomorrow’s schools? I examine how mismatched university students react to their unintended course of study and career trajectory. What makes some students embrace the given course of study while other students enter the educational field disengaged at the outset?

Understanding educational persistence

For students who embrace their adopted program, we call this educational or academic persistence. Educational persistence refers to the intensity (i.e., amount of instruction) and the duration of engagement (i.e., amount of time as an active participant in a program) (Comings et al. 2007). Within this framework, we can think about students’ regular attendance at course meetings, participation in an educational setting, and completion of program requirements.

In a higher education setting, educational persistence is observed when a student consistently maintains their status in a program of study. There are several factors that influence persistence including institutional factors and student attributes and attitudes, such as students’ self-determination, self-efficacy, and assessment of expectancy-value.

Beyond these factors, emotional factors can be important in shaping educational persistence. Roland et al. (2016) indicate that striking moments and life events may impact the persistence of students. This is particularly relevant considering that the failure to succeed in an admissions process may be internalized by a student as a traumatic event.

The sorting process in higher education admission

On a general level, higher education institutions enable some students to attain educational opportunities. Higher education is marked by barriers and inequities attributed to age, gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic class that provide educational opportunities to some and not others (Gegel et al., 2015). In higher educational institutions across the world, the belief that higher education is evening the playing field is not realized in practice. Instead, higher education often reinforces and sometimes exacerbates inequities. Sorting students in the admissions process deepens inequalities that result in opportunities for some and not others (Domina et al. 2017).

In Cameroon, there are two main criteria that guide the decision of admission: (1) the number of points earned on subject-based exams, and (2) the type of subjects passed at the General Certificate of Examinations Advanced Level (G.C.E A/L). All students must pass the G.C.E A/L (English section) to be eligible for participation in any higher education institution in Cameroon. In addition, university candidates must achieve pass marks for a minimum of two subjects (with a maximum of five subjects). Each subject is graded using a letter grade scale that is equivalent to a number of points (e.g., A=5 points; B=4 points). The cumulative number of subjects taken on the exam, as well as the cumulative number of points shape admission decisions.

Success on the entrance exam is correlated with the applicant’s ability to obtain admission in at least one of their selected top three programs of study. Related to these admissions metrics, students are often not selected into their preferred programs of study for failing to meet the academic requirements, incomplete application components, and the competitiveness of admission (e.g., too many applicants for too few admissions openings).

When no match is made, applicants are almost hardly rejected. Instead, applicants are offered another program of study. An official on the admission board at the University of Buea revealed that the approach to placement helps keep young secondary school graduates “off the streets.” Another sentiment shared was that educational opportunities may encourage prospective students to avoid other potentially harmful pursuits, including engaging in violence and conflict. Beyond these stated reasons is likely a financial motivation since accepting more fee-paying students will improve the budgetary situation of the university. What is often not weighed is the psychological effect that unexpected and undesired admissions result will have on the student. This is pronounced when students are placed in “unwanted” programs.

Being selected in “unwanted” programs

In the course of the research, I spoke to second-year students Brave, Ella, and Shiloh (pseudonyms for student participants) at the University of Buea. All three students went unmatched with their choices on their application and were offered admission into an entirely different program. In the focus group discussion, the students shared a number of important observations about their experiences. In all cases, the students failed a key subject on the high school national exam (G.C.E Advanced Level) that was a requirement for admission into their preferred university programs.

Even more concerning was the suggestion by the students that they were unaware of the entrance exam requirements and other requirements for their intended field of study. It raises the issue of how well students are guided and mentored as they pursue university. But, despite not meeting the requirements of their chosen programs, the university offered the students admission to programs in education.

The reaction of the students was telling. Most students shared how the decision to pursue a program in education was difficult. The students knew that pursuing education would mean receiving training to be a teacher, although the students had no prior passion for education sciences nor teaching.

Why do students persist with “unwanted” programs?

Given the result of the admission process for the students, it is possible that students could reject the offer altogether. But, the decision-making process is not straightforward especially when students’ socio-economic status is considered.

For instance, Brave lives with his mother and did menial jobs such as digging boreholes after completing high school to enable him to continue with his studies to the university level. He had stopped schooling for two years and was not ready to forgo another year out of school, so with the advice of his mother, he decided to enroll in the “unwanted” program. When Brave attempted to apply and enroll in an alternative higher educational institution, the fee was too high and he could not afford it.

Similarly, Shiloh expressed how financial difficulties made it difficult for her to enroll in another institution and move from her current location as she expressed:

“Financial issues, my dad is not very strong and I could not leave Buea.”

Ella felt that she had alternatives financially, but decided to pursue the education program despite the mismatched program acceptance.

Apart from students’ financial constraints, students hoped that they would have the ability to change their program in the course of their study. Despite this hope, the students in the focus group shared that stringent university procedures and policies made this difficult. In all cases, the students abandoned their efforts of transferring to another program within the University of Buea.

Finally, students’ end-of-first-semester results in the first year were equally a motivating factor to persist in their adopted programs. This finding is in line with previous research findings. When asked about their future plans, such as persisting in the same programs at postgraduate levels, the answer was emphatically no. The suggestion is that students are persisting in some cases, but without enthusiasm.

It is evident that explaining persistence for students in such circumstances is a complex, multifaceted, and individualized decision. There is a need to further explore the changes in students’ decisions over time and the factors that influence these changes, as well as the relationship between the course study and long-term career outcomes.

Future explorations

For a more in-depth understanding of students’ experience and the prevalence of “unwanted” programs amongst university students, I plan to carry out a mixed-method study that will be predominantly quantitative. The research will weigh institutional, individual, and psychological factors that shape persistence. Consequently, a mixed-method design will allow for in-depth responses, as well as the large-scale collection of data from universities in Cameroon.

I will employ multilevel modeling using students and institution factors to reveal what influences students’ decisions to persist. The inclusion of larger samples beyond Cameroon will establish baseline effects of program choices on educational persistence. Findings may reveal students’ lived experiences and key effects that will inform admission policies, as well as guidance and counseling services on issues related to program choices and student preparation for university study.

The post Are university admissions policies thwarting student choices and building a disinterested future workforce in Cameroon? appeared first on Leaders of Africa Institute.

Women contribute significantly to agricultural economies in developing countries. Data on the agriculture sector in Africa suggests that women comprise approximately 40% of the workforce, with variation across African countries. A 2017 study suggests that women account for 56% of the crop production in Uganda and 52% in Tanzania and Malawi while the figure is much smaller for countries like Niger (24%) and Ethiopia (29%).

Women are involved in driving food production, maintaining livestock, sustaining fisheries, and many other facets of the agri-food value chain. However, the variation in contributions to agricultural production is indicative of several challenges that women face in the agricultural sector, including fewer assets, less access to inputs, resources, and services than men (World Bank, 2017). Women also face various challenges stemming from their productive, reproductive, household, and societal roles (FAO, 2011).

From Crop Producers to Agricultural Professionals

As the sector transforms, women’s roles change (FAO, 2011). The challenges we observe also extend to women professionals in the agriculture sector, including a significant wage gap, lack of access to training and capacity-building opportunities, and underrepresentation in leadership positions. The nature of such challenges, the causes, and how they can be addressed is yet to be investigated fully, and efforts to promote women’s voice in the agricultural sector have come up short. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the present work environment constrains women from maximizing their potential and contributions to the sector.

My research explores the challenges that women in agricultural professions experience. The investigation recognizes the need to understand how women assess their participation in “masculinized” agricultural professions and how women can and do navigate through the space to achieve their career goals. Research on the challenges that women in agriculture face provides a starting point for strategically addressing long-standing inequities. Moreover, the research contributes to crafting interventions and the creation of support structures to further the career ambitions of female agricultural professionals.

How Did We Get Here…?

Women work in agricultural spaces as crop and animal scientists, biotechnologists, extension agents, and policymakers. However, women face many challenges in historically male-dominated work environments and the challenges are rooted in the traditional gender hierarchies that have been upheld in many societies (Martin and Barnard, 2013). Previous research has emphasized that cultural norms often shape gender inequalities in the agricultural profession (Shortall et al., 2017).

These norms have material impacts on the access to educational opportunities and the support structures required to succeed in the profession. Embedded and intersectional patriarchy offer subtle and non-subtle messages that discourage women from working as agricultural professionals.

This is witnessed in organizational settings and practices that upheld gender bias against women. To this effect, Martin and Barnard (2013) noted that women were forced to adopt some male characteristics to survive in a male-dominated environment. This deters women from pursuing science. Campbell et al (2019) found that even after being competitive in their school years and studying STEM-related fields, women were in the minority in male-dominated environments. Women are encouraged to adapt to the environment as their way of coping as opposed to shaping the environment in meaningful ways.

Scoping Out The Challenges

In 2021, I conducted focused group discussions (FGDs) with some purposively selected women professionals in the agricultural sector in Zambia. The country has seen growth in the agricultural sector and efforts are underway to augment production and nurture private businesses to enhance food production and security. In 2017, the World Bank began a financial facility of 40 million USD under the Zambia Agribusiness and Trade Project. This marks a period of investment in Zambia’s agricultural development since 2010. With the significant investment, there are expected to be many opportunities for professionals in the agricultural sector. One of the major questions is whether these investments will lead to gender inclusion in the agriculture space or will women be crowded out of the professional opportunities that result.

Against this backdrop, the FGDs revealed that despite increased opportunities the agricultural space is highly gendered and difficult to navigate for women. A major concern for FGD participants was the inflexibility of the work environment and how it prevented a healthy life-work balance. One of the FGD participants shared that their reproductive role as a mother often clashes with their role as a professional. The long working hours, fieldwork, and long work periods in rural areas away from home make it difficult to maintain family commitments.

The agricultural professionals shared that gender stereotypes persist, including that women are not capable leaders and should not do jobs that are considered the domain of men or are not deemed “suitable” for women. Women agricultural professionals have had to get the backing and approval of their clients and fellow workers before they can do their work. As indicated by the FGD participants, the norm is for the women agricultural professionals to pitch their credentials before what they have to say is accepted. One professional explained that she was viewed skeptically and as a ‘competitor’ despite having the appropriate credentials. She noted that as a female in her field of work her potential and aspirations were consistently downplayed.

There was evidence suggesting the institutionalization of the stereotypes as public and private employers prefer to hire males instead of female agricultural professionals because they feel the workspace is not for females and males are more likely to expand the business. One female FGD participant narrated how her male boss would sometimes say, “we need a young man to take up this work.” She noted that the statement would make her wonder if something was wrong with her.

Another insight from the FGDs is that decisions were often made outside the ‘boardroom’ or the ‘laboratory.’ Because of competing reproductive demands on the woman professionals in agriculture, mostly, they could not participate in the decision-making process. It was stated that the men would talk about soccer (football) before meetings and once meetings started, it was always clear that they had already discussed and taken positions on the issues for consideration. In other instances, men would discuss critical decisions while playing golf or during drinks after work. “The Men’s Club”, it was called. As such, the female professionals felt left out and were always playing catch up. In some cases, women adapted to these realities in search of a say in the decision-making process. For instance, some professionals mentioned efforts to join the “Men’s Club” and to attend drinks with the men.

Another challenge that most of the women have had to deal with as agricultural professionals is sexual and verbal harassment, as well as physical harassment. This can occur when women feel compelled to network outside of the office in male-dominated settings. It is also indicative of significant problems with accountability and safety in agricultural organizations.

Addressing the Challenges

Preliminary findings from my research suggest that patriarchy-induced norms and attitudes underscore several areas where reform and mindset change are necessary. The first step is to consider gender sensitivity and organizational environment training that includes both women and men. The aim should be to foster a gender-responsive climate. Other policies must be crafted to ensure that women have capacity-building opportunities and a support structure to guarantee a healthy life-work balance in a professional environment. The research findings will contribute to these solutions that amplify the role of professional women in a growing and dynamic agricultural sector.

References

Campbell, Constance; Williams, Feruzan Irani; and Rutner, Paige, “In Their Own Words: The Career Stories of Women Leaders in STEM Professions” (2019). SAIS 2019 Proceedings. 32. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sais2019/32

FAO. 2011. The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-2011, Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender gap, The Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/i2050e/i2050e.pdf

Martin, P., & Barnard, A. (2013). The experience of women in male-dominated occupations: A constructivist grounded theory inquiry. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 39(2), Art. #1099, 12 pages. http:// dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip. v39i2.1099

Shortall, Sally; Sutherland, Lee-Ann; McKee, Annie; Hopkins, Jonathan, “Women in Farming and the Agriculture Sector” (2017). Final Report for the Environment and Forestry Directorate, Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services (RESAS) Division, Scottish Government, https://www.gov.scot/publications/women-farming-agriculture-sector/pages/9/

World Bank 2017, Help Women ‘Get to Equal’, The World Bank, Washington. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/women-farmers-getting-to-equal

The post Confronting Barriers to Gender Equity in Africa: Challenges Facing Women in the Agricultural Space appeared first on Leaders of Africa Institute.