5.1 General Residential Characteristics

1The largest concentration of University of Ibadan students living off campus can be found in the residential district of Agbowo, which is directly opposite the university (table 5.1). As many as 47 per cent of students living in private accommodation reside in Agbowo. In addition, about 16 per cent of the students live in hostels located within Agbowo. The adjoining residential districts of Orogun and Ojoo provide accommodation for about 11 per cent of the students (fig. 3). A considerable proportion of students (22.82 %) however, live on campus at the junior and senior staff quarters of the university. This group of students enjoy the added benefit of accessibility to university facilities.

Figure 3. Residential Districts of Off-campus Students.

2Students secured accommodation through various means as shown in table 5.2. Over half (54.59 %) of the students living off campus secured accommodation through friends, while 24.94 per cent secured accommodation through parents or relations. Other sources included advertisements by estate agents, lecturers or students who serve as agents. Some students (18.35 %) however, got their accommodation through self-effort.

3Most students (91.53 %) paid up to N500 per month for private accommodation, ie, N6000 per annum The rest (8.47 %) paid between N501 and N3,500 per month (see table 5.3). These amounts are significantly higher than the accommodation fees (N90 and N130) paid by undergraduate and postgraduate students who live in the halls of residence. Even when the mandatory N2,000 municipal levy was added to this accommodation fee, it only amounts to N2,090 and N2,130 per session.

4Students living off campus interact and socialize in the different neighbourhoods where they reside. This is unlike the ‘studio setting’ of the halls of residence. From table 5.4, it can be observed that many students lived in houses in which more than one family live. About 94 per cent of the students were in this category. Some residences housed between 5 and 9 families. While this type of accommodation has its advantages, it also has its drawbacks. There is a high propensity for conflicts and overcrowding, which can impede serious academic work.

Table 5.4. Number of Families Living in House

5A cursory look at table 5.5 shows the room occupancy ratio of students living in private accommodation. About 16 per cent of the students lived alone in a room. The modal class is 2 students per room (20.2 %). About 60 per cent of the students slept in rooms with 0-3 other students while 17 per cent occupied rooms which housed between 5 to 8 students. The average occupancy ratio for students in private accommodation was 3.15 students per room. This is markedly lower than the average occupancy ratio of 5.31 students per room in the university halls of residence.

6The assessment of the facilities in the houses where students in private accommodation resided is contained in table 5.6. The most serious problem faced by these students is that of toilet facilities, which as many as 40.8 per cent of the students rated as very poor or poor. A comparison of this table with table 4.18 which presents the assessment of facilities in the halls of residence however, shows that generally, facilities in off-campus accommodation are better than those of the halls of residence.

7For example, while 48.9 per cent of the students in the halls of residence assessed the condition of the toilets as poor or very poor, 40.8 per cent of the students living off-campus assessed their toilets as poor or very poor. Similarly, while 39.1 per cent, 32.5 per cent and 20.3 per cent of the students on campus assessed their bathrooms, environmental sanitation and water supply respectively as very poor or poor. In comparison, 14.8 per cent, 20 per cent and 16 per cent respectively of the students in private accommodation gave the same assessment. While as many as 35.3 per cent of the students in the halls of residence assessed the facilities in the halls as poor or very poor, the proportion of students living off-campus that assessed the facilities in their places of residence as poor or very poor was 23.6 per cent. This better assessment of off-campus accommodation than the halls of residence gives room for serious concern. Apart from electricity supply which 21.7 per cent of the students living off-campus assessed as poor compared to only 13 per cent of the students in the halls of residence, all other indicators used show that the condition of accommodation off-campus is better than in the halls of residence.

8Transportation is a factor that increases the cost of living of students staying off-campus. Many of the students (36.7 %) living off-campus spent N 15.00 a day, while about 30 per cent spent N20.00 a day (table 5.7). The remaining off-campus students spent between N25.00 and N45.00 each day. The average amount spent on transport was N 19.25. This implies that a student who goes to campus 25 days each month, such a student would spend an average of N480.

Table 5.6. Assessment of Facilities in Residence

Table 5.7. Commuting Cost to and from Campus

Table 5.8. Commuting Time to Campus

9Majority of the students surveyed (48.2 %) spent at least 15 minutes getting to the campus, while others spent between 20 to 45 minutes. The average commuting time was 19 minutes. A large percentage of the students (44.9 %) took two buses/cabs to get to the campus (table 5.9), while others (28.2 %) took just one bus or cab. This implies that majority of the off-campus students (ie, 73.1 %) take at least 1 or 2 buses/cabs to get to the campus.

Table 5.9. Number of Buses/Cabs Taken to Campus

10When asked why they preferred living off-campus to squatting in the university halls of residence, some of the students (25.6 %) said they were unable to secure accommodation in the halls of residence and could not squat (table 5.10). Some believed that living off-campus would offer them a level of privacy and comfort (9.6 %). A number of students abhorred the poor sanitary conditions and overcrowding in the halls (7.5 %), while some simply found off-campus accommodation convenient. Some students, could not secure accommodation on campus due to negligence, for instance, 3.5 per cent of the students failed to register on time. Some students, however, actually tried to secure accommodation, but were not successful during the regular balloting for rooms.

11Some of the students interviewed (33.2 %) claimed that financial constraints restrained them from living in the halls. Apparently these students had considered what it would cost them to buy bedspaces or to squat. For example, among students who had bought bedspaces or squatted on campus at some time in the past, 33.33 per cent and 28.57 per cent respectively complained of financial constraint. Some of the students (10.6 %) had no major reason for living off-campus. This set of students probably had several reasons for staying off-campus, with no one reason being more important than the others.

5.2 Support for On-campus Accommodation by Those Living Off-campus

12The analysis in this section has been disaggregated into those students who have, at some time in the past squatted on campus and those that have never squatted. This is with a view to assessing the reactions of those students who had lived in halls of residence but were at the time, living outside the halls of residence. Among the students that had squatted on campus, 37.32 per cent were in support of on-campus accommodation (table 5.10). While 20 per cent of these students did not support on-campus accommodation, 28.79 per cent of the students were indifferent. On the average, 66.82 per cent of all off-campus students were in support of on-campus accommodation.

13The reasons given by those who supported on-campus accommodation (table 5.11) include the lovely and comfortable environment for learning (42.96 %); accessibility to social and religious centres of activity (10.92 %); frequent supply of basic amenities such as electricity (10.21 %); cost, distance and time effectiveness (9.86 %); and socialization and academic interactions (9.15 %). Those students that opposed on-campus living (table 5.12) gave such reasons as overcrowding (37.50 %), unsanitary conditions (25 %), cultism and other social evils (9.56 %), unseriousness of on-campus students (4.41 %) and inadequate security on campus (1.47 %).

Table 5.10. Support for On-Campus Accommodation

14As shown in table 5.13, about 23 per cent of the students in the university considered the current management structure of the halls appropriate. About 61 per cent considered the management structure inappropriate. The possibility of introducing private/ quasi private management of halls of residence was approved of by 45.53 % of the students and disapproved of by 38.35 % of the students (table 5.14). The remaining 18.12 per cent of the students were indifferent. A similar pattern was also observed for the group of students who had never squatted in the halls of residence; 42.12 per cent were in support of the idea, 39.29 per cent were opposed to it and 18.57 per cent were indifferent.

Table 5.14. Support for Private/Quasi Private Management of Halls of Residence

15Most of the students that supported private/quasi private management of the halls of residence (table 5.15) thought that it would ease the problem of accommodation on campus (53.52 %). Others felt that it would lead to proper maintenance of the halls (27.03 %). Other reasons given by the students include the possibility of solving the problem of lack of privacy (10.81 %), easing tension on campus and reducing favouritism in the allocation of bedspaces (3.78 %).

16On the other hand, the major reason why some students opposed the idea of private/quasi management of halls (table 5.16) was that it might be expensive and could lead to exploitation of students (67.26 %). Other reasons were that it could promote unseriousness among students (25 %) and that it could lead to poor maintenance of the halls of residence (2.98 %). Some students (2.98 %) believed that since the university is a federal institution, halls of residence should be provided by the university authorities.

17The highest number of students living off-campus who had ever squatted (table 5.17) had squatted in Tedder Hall (7.3 %) and Queens Hall (5.88 %). However, what is evident from the figures is that squatting occurs in all the halls of residence.

18Among the off-campus students who had bought bedspaces in the past, the amount spent by most students was between N500 and N 1,000 (table 5.18). A few students, however, paid up to N3,000 for their bedspaces.

5.3 General Impression of Off-Campus Students about On-Campus Accommodation

19What most off-campus students claimed they liked best about living in the halls of residence (see table 5.19) was the regular and adequate supply of utilities and better hall management (20.9 %). The next most-cited reason was the belief that on-campus accommodation promotes academic excellence due to the conducive academic environment (13.2 %). The other reasons why students enjoyed living on-campus include the ability to make friends easily and the encouragement of mutual and group relationships (9.6 %), socialization and independence (8.9 %); access to social and religious activities (8.7 %); cost, distance and time effectiveness (4.9 %) and easy access to academic materials (4.0 %).

20Some students, however, expressed some reservations about living on campus as indicated in table 5.20. Some of the reservations include unhygienic condition of halls and inadequate accommodation (9.4 %), increase in crime rate (6.6 %), restriction or absence of privacy (7.1 %), the spread of bad habits (5.4 %), overcrowding (2.6 %) and poor management of the halls of residence and the facilities provided in the halls (4.7 %).

21Students living off campus were asked how they thought that student housing on-campus could be improved (table 5.21). Some of the most striking comments included the provision of more bedspaces and hostels (9.2 %), renovation and rehabilitation of existing halls (4.9 %), and encouraging private investors to invest in housing (2.8 %).