Chapter Four
Empirical Findings
p. 61-85
Texte intégral
4.1 Introduction
1This chapter presents detailed findings of the survey of student on- and off-campus accommodation at the University of Ibadan. As noted in the methodology section of chapter one, this research was carried out in two phases. While chapter three presents the results of the first phase, chapter four presents the empirical evidence used for the various observations made in chapter three. It presents facts and figures about the students themselves, their characteristics, housing preferences, problems, aspirations, the effects of inadequate accommodation on the health and on the academic performance of students, etc.
4.2 General Characteristics of Students
2The general characteristics of the students surveyed show that male students (75.35 %) outnumber their co-eds (24.65 %) (see table 4.1). This is also reflected in the larger number of male halls (6) compared to female halls (2) in the university. The two postgraduate halls house both female and male students. The gender gap among the students who reside in private accommodation within the university campus is less pronounced with 53.65 per cent for male students compared with 46.35 per cent for female students.
Table 4.1. Sex of Respondents
Sex | On-campus halls | Private accommodation | Total |
Male | 324 | 228 | 552 |
Female | 106 | 197 | 303 |
Total | 430 | 425 | 855 |
Note: Figures in parentheses are column percentages.
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
Table 4.2. Types of Students
Type of student | On-campus halls | Private accommodation | Total |
Fresh students | 116 (26.98) | 72 (16.94) | 188 (21.99) |
‘Stale’ students | 215 (50.00) | 282 (66.35) | 497 (58.13) |
Final year students | 37 (8.60) | 61 (14.35) | 98 (11.46) |
PG students | 62 (14.42) | 10 (2.35) | 72 (8.42) |
Total | 430 (100.00) | 425 (99.99*) | 855 (100.00) |
Note: Figures in parentheses are column percentages.
* Did not add up to 100 % due to rounding error.
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
3A cursory look at table 4.2 shows that a higher proportion of ‘fresh’ (first year) students stayed in the halls of residence. Of the total number of students living on-campus, over a quarter of them (26,98 %) were first year students while the corresponding percentage for those that live in private accommodation within and outside the campus was 16.94. As much as 61.70 per cent of the 188 first year students surveyed, stayed in the halls of residence, while 38.30 per cent lived in private accommodation on and off-campus. This is not surprising in view of the fact that the university authorities give preference to fresh students in the allocation of bedspaces in the halls.
4For the final year students, however, it was quite surprising that a smaller percentage lived in the halls of residence, especially as final year students are, as a rule, provided ‘automatic’ accommodation in the halls of residence. It is assumed that the halls of residence provide a conducive environment for studies, especially for final year students who need to be close to university facilities.
5Table 4.3 presents an interesting picture. It shows that there was no significant difference between the responses of students that live in university halls and those that reside in private residences on- and off-campus when they asked whether they had any close relations in Ibadan. It was expected that students who have relations in Ibadan would prefer to stay off-campus.
Table 4.3. Presence of Extended Family Member with Whom Students Could Live in Ibadan
Any close relations? | On-campus halls | Private accommodation | Total |
Yes | 289 (67.21) | 283 (66.59) | 572 (66.90) |
No | 141 (32.79) | 142 (33.41) | 283 (33.10) |
Total | 430 (100.00) | 425 (100.00) | 855 (100.00) |
Note: Figures in parentheses are column percentages.
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
4.3 Residential Characteristics and Behaviour of Students in University Halls of Residence
4.3.1 Accommodation status of students
6The status of the students who reside in the university halls of residence is shown in table 4.4. The students who were officially allocated bedspaces in the halls of residence, that is, those referred to as landlords, constituted 57.44 per cent, while those who were not allocated bedspaces but who secured hall accommodation by some arrangement, that is, the squatters, constituted as much as 42.56 per cent. This indicates that about 4 out of every 10 students; in the university halls of residence were squatters. This has implications with respect to pressure on the facilities and the hygiene of the halls of residence.
Table 4.4. Ownership of Accommodation
Status | No. of students | % |
Landlord | 247 | 57.44 |
Squatter | 183 | 42.56 |
Total | 430 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
7From table 4,5, it can be observed that 68.6 per cent of the students surveyed had secured accommodation in a hall of residence at some time in the past. Over 30 per cent, however, had never been offered accommodation.
4.3.2 Squatting in university halls of residence
8This research endeavoured to find out how the squatters secured their accommodation. Recall that over 40 per cent (table 4.4) of the students who lived in the university halls were squatters.
Table 4.5. First Time of Securing Accommodation?
No. of students | % | |
Yes | 135 | 31.40 |
No | 295 | 68.60 |
Total | 430 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
9It was observed that squatters generally use an informal approach to secure their bedspaces (table 4.6). Well over half (57.92 %) of the squatters secured their bedspaces through friends, while 18.58 per cent secured their spaces through colleagues. A considerable number of squatters (10.93 %) secured their bedspaces through ‘brethren’ in religious fellowships. While some got their spaces through relatives (4.92 %) and members of their township associations (1.09 %); others got their spaces through direct contact with ‘landlords’, or through what they considered to be sheer luck.
Table 4.6. How Squatters Secured Accommodation
S/N | Method of securing accommodation | No. of students | % |
1. | Through friends | 106 | 57.92 |
2. | Through colleagues | 34 | 18.58 |
3. | Through religious fellowships | 20 | 10.93 |
4. | Through relatives | 9 | 4.92 |
5. | Arrangement with landlords | 5 | 2.73 |
6. | On invitation of landlord | 1 | 0.55 |
7. | Sheer luck | 6 | 3.28 |
8. | Townsmen | 2 | 1.09 |
Total | 183 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
10Most of the squatters had squatted more than once. Nearly 58 per cent of the squatters were not squatting for the first time (table 4.7). When compared with the information in table 4.8, as much as 67 per cent of the squatters had never been officially allocated bedspaces in any of the halls of residence. It seems that students who were disposed to squatting had track records of either having been squatters themselves or having hosted squatters. For example, 34.97 per cent of the squatters had had squatters during their previous accommodations (table 4.9) and the number of squatters varied (table 4.10). A few of them (13.11 %) had squatted their current ‘landlord’ in the past (table 4.11). This showed that many students try to build up goodwill by taking on one or more squatters if they are able to secure accommodation, with the hope that they too would find someone to squat with during the time they are unable to secure accommodation.
Table 4.7. First Time of Squatting?
No. of students | % | |
Yes | 78 | 42.62 |
No | 105 | 57.38 |
Total | 183 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
Table 4.8. Ever Secured Regular Accommodation?
No. of students | % | |
Yes | 60 | 32.79 |
No | 123 | 67.21 |
Total | 183 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
Table 4.9. Whether Student Had a Squatter during Previous Accommodation
No. of students | % | |
Had squatter | 64 | 34.97 |
Did not have squatter | 119 | 65.03 |
Total | 183 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
Table 4.10. Number of Squatters Had during Regular Accommodation
No of squatters | No. of students | % |
1 Squatter | 34 | 53.12 |
2 Squatters | 30 | 46.88 |
Total | 64 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
Table 4.11. Role Reversal: Whether Squatted Current Landlord
Squatted current landlord? | No. of students | % |
Yes | 24 | 13.11 |
No | 159 | 86.89 |
Total | 183 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
11It was discovered that some squatters pay for their squatting spaces. The survey revealed that 38.25 per cent of the squatters, paid for their squatting spaces (see table 4.12). Virtually all the ‘squatters’ paid higher rates than the official accommodation fees of N90.00 for undergraduates and N 130.00 for postgraduate students.
12Squatting has social, physiological and psychological consequences. Although 56.28 per cent of the respondents (table 4.13) felt indifferent about the fact that they were squatting, about a fifth (21.86 %) of the squatters felt ashamed. The squatters that felt indifferent and those had no response apparently had little or no alternative to squatting.
Table 4.12. Payment for Squatting Space
Amount paid (N) | No. of students | % |
Nil | 113 | 61.75 |
200 | 61 | 33.33 |
500 | 8 | 4.37 |
700 | 1 | 0.55 |
Total | 183 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
Table 4.13. Squatter’s Sense of Self-esteem
S/N | Feeling | No. of students | % |
1. | Ashamed | 40 | 21.86 |
2. | Indifferent | 103 | 56.28 |
3. | Proud | 14 | 7.65 |
4. | No response | 26 | 14.21 |
Total | 183 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
13Table 4.14 shows squatters opinion of conditions in the rooms. Apart from the 49.73 per cent squatters who claimed they had enough rest at night, over half of the squatters (54.47 %) claimed that they did not have enough rest during the day; 54.10 % did not have adequate space to keep their belongings, 71.58 % had no privacy and 56.83 % did not have enough time for serious academic work. If the squatters who did not respond were also part of the group of squatters that did not enjoy any conveniences, then it can be deduced that squatting is truly pathetic and detrimental to their academic performance.
Table 4.14. Physiological and Psychological Characteristics of Squatters

Note: Figures in parentheses are row percentages.
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
14It was therefore logical to examine why students still squat. Table 4.15 shows the various reasons why squatters prefer squatting in the university halls to securing private accommodation within or outside the university campus. Some of the reasons given were obvious such as inadequate accommodation on campus (15.85 %), availability of regular supply of facilities (9.84 %), proximity to educational facilities (11.47 %), less expensive cost of accommodation and allied facilities (11,47 %), facilitates academic work (8.74 %) accessibility to latest information and ‘campus life’ (1.64 %) and facilitates interaction between students (5.46 %), among others.
Table 4.15. Reasons Why Students Prefer Squatting
S/N | Reasons | No. of students | % |
1. | Inadequate accommodation | 29 | 15.85 |
2. | Regular supply of basic utilities | 18 | 9.84 |
3. | Access/proximity to educational facilities | 21 | 11.47 |
4. | Spiritual upliftment | 17 | 9.29 |
5. | Time and distance factors | 11 | 6.01 |
6. | Facilitation of academic work | 16 | 8.74 |
7. | Interaction between students | 10 | 5.46 |
8. | Reduces academic and other stresses | 6 | 3.28 |
9. | Avoidance of problems of off-campus landlords and landladies | 4 | 2.19 |
10. | Promotes punctuality | 5 | 2.73 |
11. | Promotes socialization | 1 | 0.55 |
12. | Less expensive | 21 | 11.47 |
13. | Less risky | 6 | 3.28 |
14. | Access to latest information and campus life | 3 | 1.64 |
15. | No immediate reason | 15 | 8.20 |
Total | 183 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
4.4 Living Conditions in the Halls of Residence
15The general living conditions in the university halls of residence are examined with particular reference to room occupancy ratio and facilities. Table 4.16 shows the number of students statutorily allocated to each room in the halls of residence. The postgraduate halls usually have one to two postgraduate students per room. Rooms allocated to four students were the most common in the undergraduate halls of residence. About 45 per cent of the students lived in such rooms. A closer look at table 4.17, however, reveals that students flagrantly alter these statutory figures.
Table 4.16. Number of Students Statutorily Allocated to Rooms
No. of students allocated | No. of students (respondents) | % |
1 | 42 | 9.8 |
2 | 84 | 19.5 |
3 | 70 | 16.3 |
4 | 196 | 45.6 |
5 | 10 | 2.3 |
No Response | 28 | 6.5 |
Total | 430 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
Table 4.17. Number of Students that Sleep in Rooms at Night
No. of students | Frequency | % | Cum. % |
1 | 37 | 8.6 | 100.0 |
2 | 43 | 10.0 | 91.5 |
3 | 54 | 12.6 | 81.5 |
4 | 57 | 13.3 | 68.9 |
5 | 31 | 7.2 | 55.6 |
6 | 49 | 11.4 | 48.4 |
7 | 24 | 5.6 | 37.0 |
8 | 49 | 11.4 | 31.4 |
9 | 20 | 4.7 | 20.0 |
10 | 26 | 6.0 | 15.3 |
11 | – | 0.0 | 9.3 |
12 | 16 | 3.7 | 9.3 |
No Response | 24 | 5.6 | 5.6 |
Total | 430 | 100.0 | – |
Average Occupancy ratio = 5.31 students per room.
Source: Fieldwork, 1999
16A comparison of tables 4.16 and 4.17 shows that out of the 42 rooms which were statutorily allocated one student per room, 37 actually had one student. Of the 84 rooms to which two students were allocated, 43 actually housed two students, while the remaining 41 rooms (49 %) now house more than two students. Similarly, of the 196 rooms which were allocated four students per room only 37 rooms actually had four students, while the remaining 139 rooms (71 %) accommodated more than four of students. It was observed that as many as 48.4 per cent of the students occupied rooms which house at least six students while as much as 20 per cent of the students lived in rooms where at least nine students slept at night. The average room occupancy ratio is 5.31 students per room, which should be a cause for serious concern, especially with respect to the health of students, their privacy, academic performance, convenience, and the pressure on facilities in the halls.
17Going by the rather high room occupancy ratio presented above, the results contained in table 4.18 will not be surprising. The students assessed the hall facilities by indicating what they perceived to be the state of each identified facility on a five point scale ranging from very poor to very good. A cursory look at table 4.18 and a quick summation of the two columns of ‘very poor’ and ‘poor’ reveal that the facilities in the university halls of residence leave a lot to be desired. Apart from the electricity supply which about 13.0 per cent of the students ranked as very poor or poor, such basic amenities as toilets (48.9 %), bathrooms (39.1 %), sanitation (32.5 %), and water (20.3 %) were ranked as very poor or poor. Other facilities such as transportation (38.8 %), laundry (40.2 %), cafeteria (40.3 %) and health (first aid) facilities (44.4 %) were also ranked as very poor or poor. The average gross assessment of all the facilities indicates that as many as 35.3 per cent of students assessed their hall facilities as very poor or poor. The unsatisfactory condition of hall facilities could be due to a variety of reasons ranging from the poor financing of the university by the federal government and improper management and maintenance of the halls by the university authorities to the careless use or overuse of these facilities by students.
Table 4.18. Evaluation of Halls Facilities

Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages.
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
18Despite the poor condition of the hall facilities, most students (69.3 %) in the halls of residence had never stayed off-campus (table 4.19). The majority of students (69.3 %) who did not secure accommodation in the halls of residence sought alternative accommodation on campus (see table 4.20).
Table 4.19. Whether Respondent Ever Stayed Off-Campus
Ever stayed off campus? | No. of students | % |
Yes | 96 | 22.3 |
No | 298 | 69.3 |
No response | 36 | 8.4 |
Total | 430 | 100.0 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
Table 4.20. Where Respondent Stayed When He/she Did Not Stay Off-Campus
Where stayed | No. of students | % |
Religious area | 101 | 34.0 |
U. I. staff area | 156 | 52.3 |
Classroom | 1 | 0.3 |
Reading room | 1 | 0.3 |
No response | 39 | 13.1 |
Total | 298 | 100.0 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
4.5 The Management of University Halls of Residence
19A considerable proportion (49.3 %) of students considered the current university hall management structure inappropriate (table 4.21). Other students (31.6 %) considered the existing structure appropriate.
20In spite of the observed lapses in the hall management structure, however, a large proportion (73.49 %) of the students still supported on-campus accommodation (table 4.22). A small proportion (12.79 %) of students did not support on-campus accommodation (table 4.22).
Table 4.21. Appropriateness of Current Hall Management Structure
Management structure | No. of students | % |
Appropriate | 136 | 31.6 |
Not appropriate | 212 | 49.3 |
No response | 82 | 19.1 |
Total | 430 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
Table 4.22. Support for On-Campus Student Residence

Note: (1) Figures in parentheses and asterisked figures are percentages.
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
21Some of the reasons (see table 4.23) given by the students for supporting on-campus accommodation include savings made in terms of money and time (26.9 %), conducive environment for learning (25.6 %), adequate supply of utilities (19.6 %), other factors such as security and enforcement of the rights of students (6.3 %), and the avoidance of societal vices and epileptic supply of utilities outside the university campus (0.9 %).
22The major reasons given for opposing on-campus accommodation (see table 4.24) include lack of security of life and property, especially in view of the increasing wave of cultism on campus (49.12 %), overpopulation (excessively high room occupancy ratio) and the generally unhygienic environment (38.60 %).
Table 4.23. Reasons for Supporting On-Campus Residence for Students
S/N | Reasons | Frequency | % |
1. | Adequate supply of utility services | 62 | 19.6 |
2. | Cost, time and distance Factors | 85 | 26.9 |
3. | Conducive environment for learning | 81 | 25.6 |
4. | Agency of socialization | 32 | 10.1 |
5. | Reduces student accommodation problem | 5 | 1.6 |
6. | Spiritual upliftment and psychological advantage | 2 | 0.6 |
7. | Accessibility to institutional facilities | 3 | 0.9 |
8. | Quicker information dissemination | 1 | 0.3 |
9. | Provide opportunity to attend lectures | 22 | 6.9 |
10. | Security and rights of the students | 20 | 6.3 |
11. | Avoidance of societal vices and poor power supply | 3 | 0.9 |
Total | 16 | 100.0 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
Table 4.24. Reasons for not Supporting On-Campus Students’ Residence
S/N | Reasons | No. of Students | % |
1. | Overpopulation and unhygienic environment | 44 | 38.60 |
2. | Security reasons | 56 | 49.12 |
3. | Individual choice | 14 | 12.28 |
Total | 114 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
23Considering the fact that university halls of residence are not properly managed and that students are overwhelmingly desirous of living on campus, this study sought to know students’ reactions to the possibility of introducing private or quasi-private agencies to manage the halls of residence. Student responses, presented in table 4.25 show that a larger percentage of the students (50.70 %) opposed the idea of private agencies managing the university halls. Even students that had lived off-campus (46.88 %) opposed the idea. However, 30 per cent of all the students supported private/quasi-private management of university halls of residence. Some of the reasons given by students who supported such an arrangement are: better hall management, improved living conditions and lower cost of accommodation (65.9 %), reduction in the university authorities’ influence and greater accountability (25.2 %) (see table 4.26). Other reasons include, the possibility of ensuring equal housing opportunities (3.4 %) and knowing who to hold responsible if anything goes wrong (1.3 %).
Table 4.25. Support for Private/Quasi Private Management of Halls of Residence

Note: Figures in parentheses are column percentages.
Figures with an asterisk are row percentages.
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
24Some of the reasons given by students who supported such an arrangement are: better hall management, improved living conditions and lower cost of accommodation (65.9 %), reduction in the university authorities’ influence and greater accountability (25.2 %) (see table 4.26). Other reasons include, the possibility of ensuring equal housing opportunities (3.4 %) and knowing who to hold responsible if anything goes wrong (1.3 %).
25Students who vehemently opposed the introduction of private management of student halls, however, believed that such a move would encourage marginalization and exploitation of students (63.0 %), and favouritism in the allocation of bedspaces (14.5 %) (table 4.27). A few others believed that the university authorities and students could still successfully manage the halls of residence (7.6 %), while others (5.1 %) felt that private agencies would mismanage the halls. Some students said that since the institution is a federal university, there was no need for private management (2.5 %), while others felt that management of the hall by the university authorities would ensure uniformity of management and facilities in all halls of residence (2.1 %).
Table 4.26. Reasons for Supporting Private/Quasi Private Management of Hall
S/N | Reasons | Frequency | % |
1. | Better hall management, living conditions*and lower cost | 97 | 65.9 |
2. | Would reduce authority’s influence and promote accountability | 37 | 25.2 |
3. | Ensures equal housing opportunity | 5 | 3.4 |
4. | Exposure of school authority’s weakness | 1 | 0.7 |
5. | Security, cheaper cost and punctuality in class | 1 | 0.7 |
6. | Privatization will bring about seriousness | 1 | 0.7 |
7. | If anything goes wrong, students will know who to hold responsible | 2 | 1.3 |
8. | Provision of accommodation at subsidized rate | 1 | 0.7 |
9. | Privacy | 1 | 0.7 |
10. | Enables private investors to enforce more discipline | 1 | 0.7 |
Total | 147 | 100.00 |
Note: Some students who did not respond either yes/no to the question apparently must have included their reasons.
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
Table 4.27. Reasons for Not Supporting Private/Quasi Private Management of Halls
S/N | Reasons | Frequency | % |
1. | Marginalization and exploitation of students | 148 | 63.0 |
2. | U1 authority and students can still handle the hall management | 18 | 7.6 |
3. | Mismanagement | 12 | 5.1 |
4. | Favouritism in the allocation of bedspaces | 34 | 14.5 |
5. | No need since the school is a federal school | 6 | 2.5 |
6. | Present mode of management is all right | 3 | 1.3 |
7. | Accommodation will become means of segregation | 2 | 0.9 |
8. | Uniformity of purposes in all the halls | 5 | 2.1 |
9. | Reduces accommodation fees and exploitation of students | 2 | 0.9 |
10. | Promotion of social clubs | 1 | 0.4 |
11. | Bound to worsen situation | 1 | 0.4 |
12. | Augment annual subvention | 3 | 1.3 |
Total | 235 | 100.00 |
Note: Some students who did not respond Yes/No to the question apparently must have added their reasons.
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
26Over three-quarters (76.7 %) of the students said they would not be willing to pay more than N500 for a bedspace per session (table 4.28) if the halls were managed by private or quasi private agencies. Less than 20 per cent of students were willing to pay more than N 1,000, while about 16 per cent were willing to pay more than N2,000 per bedspace per session.
Table 4.28. Amount Students are Willing to Pay for Hall Accommodation Managed by Private/Quasi Private Management
Amount (N) | No. of students | % | Cum. % |
0 – 250 | 4 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
251 – 500 | 326 | 75.8 | 76.7 |
501 – 750 | 0 | 0.0 | 76.7 |
751 – 1000 | 17 | 3.9 | 80.6 |
1001 – 1250 | 4 | 0.9 | 81.5 |
1251 – 1500 | 2 | 0.5 | 82.0 |
1501 – 1750 | 0 | 0.0 | 82.0 |
1751 – 2000 | 8 | 1.9 | 83.9 |
2001 – 2500 | 0 | 0.0 | 83.9 |
2251 – 2500 | 13 | 3.0 | 86.9 |
No response | 56 | 13.0 | 100.00 |
Total | 430 | 100.00 | – |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
4.6 General Opinion of Students about On-campus Accommodation
27Majority of students enjoy living on campus for different reasons. These are shown in table 4.29. A large proportion of these students enjoyed interacting with people of diverse disciplines and backgrounds (23.7 %). Furthermore, 13.5 per cent of the students said they enjoyed adequate supply of water, electricity and other university facilities, while 4.9 per cent enjoyed living in the university environment because it was conducive to learning and research. About 4.2 per cent stated that living on campus was less expensive while 2.1 per cent said that it helped them cultivate the habit of tolerating other people. About 6.7 per cent felt they were privileged to freely participate in and carry out their religious activities.
Table 4.29. What is Enjoyed Most On Campus
S/N | What is enjoyed | Frequency | % |
1. | Adequate supply of water and electricity | 58 | 13.5 |
2. | Access and closeness to institutional facilities | 58 | 13.5 |
3. | Privilege to participate in different religious activities | 29 | 6.7 |
4. | Easy mobilization of students for a common purpose | 1 | 0.2 |
5. | Interaction with people of diverse disciplines and backgrounds | 102 | 25.7 |
6. | Closeness to friends | 1 | 0.2 |
7. | Constant power supply | 2 | 0.5 |
8. | Conducive environment for learning and research | 21 | 4.9 |
9. | Campus life and privacy | 18 | 4.2 |
10. | Help to develop habit of tolerance and safety factor | 9 | 2.1 |
11. | Less expensive and time | 11 | 2.6 |
12. | Promotion of immoral acts | 1 | 0.2 |
13. | Relative freedom/ privacy of individuals | 2 | 0.5 |
14. | Less distraction | 1 | 0.2 |
15. | No, response | 116 | 27.0 |
Total | 430 | 100.0 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
28In spite of the various facilities enjoyed by students who live on campus, many students still expressed some reservations (table 4.30). Overcrowding, poor sanitation and lack of privacy (18.6 %) topped the list of problems which caused students some concern. A number of students (14.0 %) were worried about the increasing level of moral decadence among students. Another 2.3 per cent of the students were apprehensive about security on campus, especially because of the menace of cultism, the problem of noise pollution from students’ stereo sets, and the seemingly uncontrolled activities of various religious groups in the halls of residence. About 6 per cent, however, had no reservations about living on campus.
29Table 4.31 shows additional comments volunteered by students about accommodation within the university. Although, a little more than half of the students made no additional comments, the suggestions that were made were mainly about improving the standard of living in the halls of residence. Some students suggested the provision of adequate facilities and improving management of these halls (23.5 %), while others (1.6 %) condemned the use of mobile policemen to eject students from the halls during crises. A couple of students (1.6 %) advocated moderate and realistic accommodation fees while others (1.4 %) called for preferential treatment of final year students. Other suggestions included the need to improve sanitation on campus (1.2 %), the need to regulate students’ lifestyles (0.5 %) and the need to improve the relationship between the university authorities and students (0.7 %).
Table 4.30. Reservations about On-Campus Living
S/N | Comments | Frequency | % |
1. | Moral decadence | 60 | 14.0 |
2. | Overcrowding, sanitation problem, lack of privacy, health problem | 80 | 18.6 |
3. | Inadequate hall of residence/expensive and uncomfortable | 8 | 1.9 |
4. | Loose security, noise pollution and much of religious activities | 10 | 2.3 |
5. | Warden-students relationship is autocratic | 4 | 0.9 |
6. | Poor condition of hall facilities | 8 | 1.9 |
7. | Mixture of male and female students at Awo | 2 | .5 |
8. | Halls are more expensive, discourages association | 5 | 1.2 |
9. | Source of urban violence and health hazards | 3 | .7 |
10. | Breach of the accommodation terms by school authority | 3 | .7 |
11. | On-campus living is sometimes stressful | 3 | .7 |
12. | No reservations | 25 | 5.8 |
13. | Bad attitude of end users | 2 | .5 |
14. | Allocation of bedspaces | 2 | .5 |
15. | Intra-campus communication and favouritism | 1 | .2 |
16. | No response | 214 | 49.8 |
Total | 430 | 100.00 |
Source. Fieldwork, 1999.
Table 4.31. General Comments about University Hall Accommodation
S/N | Comments | Frequency | % |
1. | Provision of and better management of halls of residence | 101 | 23.5 |
2. | Use of mobile policemen to eject students must stop | 7 | 1.6 |
3. | Charge of moderate and realistic accommodation fees | 7 | 1.6 |
4. | Appoint competent people to manage halls | 7 | 1.6 |
5. | Preferential treatment should be given to new and final year students | 6 | 1.4 |
6. | Regulate religious activities; provide first aid | 2 | 0.5 |
7. | Improve standard of Nigerian universities | 3 | 0.7 |
8. | Students’ way of life | 2 | 0.5 |
9. | Sanitation of the environment | 5 | 1.2 |
10. | Proper allocation of bedspaces | 5 | 1.2 |
11. | Cultism should be checked | 2 | 0.5 |
12. | Improve authority-students relationship | 3 | 0.7 |
13. | Harassment, poor supply of utilities | 4 | 0.9 |
14. | Sound overall economy | 3 | 0.7 |
15. | Overcrowding, inadequate mattresses and poor sanitation | 3 | 0.7 |
16. | Concentration on one’s studies, social interaction and information | 15 | 3.5 |
17. | Structural transformation of the Nigerian society at large | 1 | 0.2 |
18. | Proper utilization of hall dues, eradication of municipal fee | 2 | 0.5 |
19. | Adequate security should be provided | 2 | 0.5 |
20. | Economy of time, distance, energy, etc. | 1 | 0.2 |
21. | Students should come together to fight for a common right | 1 | 0.2 |
22. | No response | 248 | 57.7 |
Total | 430 | 100.00 |
Source: Fieldwork, 1999.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
The Frontier States of Western Yorubaland
State Formation and Political Growth in an Ethnic Frontier Zone
Biodun Adediran
1994
The Architecture of Fear
Urban Design and Construction Response to Urban Violence in Lagos, Nigeria
Tunde Agbola
1997
Nigeria during the Abacha Years (1993-1998)
The Domestic and International Politics of Democratization
‘Kunle Amuwo, Daniel C. Bach et Yann Lebeau (dir.)
2001
Informal Channels for Conflict Resolution in Ibadan, Nigeria
Isaac Olawale Albert, Tinu Awe, Georges Hérault et al.
1995
Urban Violence in Africa
Pilot Studies (South Africa, Côte-d’Ivoire, Nigeria)
Eghosa E. Osaghae, Ismaila Touré, N’Guessan Kouamé et al.
1994