However, it was still too early to celebrate
because another criterion was going to be used to further reduce the number to
at least 50. A two-day oral interview exercise therefore followed.Being almost at the top of the list, I faced the huge panel in the morning of the first day, Thursday 31st July. For about five minutes or less, I successfully answered a few 'silly' questions and left. Then later, it was time for the deciders to tell the university who passed and who failed.
On my way back to the hostels after evening lectures the following Monday, I saw a great commotion around the notice board that claimed my attention. I quickly joined them and saw another list that had all original 150 names plus three. It was the score sheet for the interviewees, with the percentage points against each name.
56 out of 100; that is what they wrote against my name! Please be careful, I did not say 86, I said 56. The highest got 97 and they were three. Sounds like a joke? Cool. To me, it does not sound. It is.
Chemistry was a tough subject in high school and indeed I used to get 56 but only when it was out of 70. The problem is not the fact that I got such a low mark, but how I got it. In fact the biggest question whose answer I can only guess right is how others scored their marks. Another list was later pinned, that had only the successful candidates. They were 54 in total and the last one had 90%.
Negative ethnicity; Favor for politicians and activists; Suppression of the media and the unknowns. Someone once told me that nowadays, getting a job is more of one's connection than qualification. Now I have no reason to disagree because I clearly saw it.
The whole exercise was conducted just to comply with the constitution's requirements but points were earned in a totally different approach. They wasted my time and and those of others
