Nasarawa State University’s doctoral output: A case for context before criticism, By Fidelis Duker

The recent public discourse surrounding Nasarawa State University’s graduation of 1,677 PhD holders over four years requires a more analytical and contextual defense, rather than a sensationalist critique.

First, a simple arithmetic division of 1,677 ÷ 4 = 418 PhDs per year fails to account for the institutional structure and student timelines. Without a detailed breakdown of how many faculties and departments produced these graduates, any criticism is premature. A university with numerous faculties (e.g., Arts, Sciences, Social Sciences, Agriculture, Law, Education, Engineering, and Environmental Sciences) and dozens of departments could realistically average over 400 PhDs annually, especially if some departments graduate 10–20 doctoral candidates per year.

Second, the duration of doctoral study is inherently variable. While the minimum timeframe for a PhD is three years, many candidates take the maximum allowable duration up to seven years or more to complete their research. Therefore, many of the 1,677 graduates likely began their programs as far back as 2015 or earlier, finishing within this four-year window. The figure thus represents cumulative output over time, not an annual intake of new students.

Crucially, when we compare Nasarawa State University’s output to other institutions, the numbers are far from anomalous. Several universities in Nigeria and globally produce similar or significantly higher numbers of doctoral graduates annually, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria at its 45th Convocation, ABU graduated 610 PhDs in a single ceremony. At its 43rd Convocation, same ABU produced 647 PhDs. University of Ibadan (UI) as Nigeria’s premier university, UI graduates an average of 400 PhDs annually, with a recent convocation seeing 487 PhD recipients which demonstrates that diverse institutions engage in doctoral training.

Advertisement

Globally, elite research universities routinely produce doctoral cohorts that dwarf these numbers. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), for example, produces approximately 500 PhD graduates per year from a single institution. When measured against such benchmarks, Nasarawa State University’s average of 418 PhDs per year falls within a standard range for a comprehensive university with multiple doctoral programs.

The Core Question should be the issue of Quantity versus Quality. So beyond the arithmetic, the real interrogation should not be about the number of graduates but about the quality of their training and research output. The minimum duration for a PhD is three years, but rigorous programs often require longer to ensure original, defensible contributions to knowledge. If these 1,677 graduates met all academic requirements—including thesis defense, publications in peer-reviewed journals, and rigorous external examinations then the number is irrelevant to the legitimacy of their degrees. We should be questioning whether their research was transformative and impactful, not simply how long it took or how many graduated concurrently.

Many PhD programs admit students in cohorts. A university that expanded its doctoral offerings or increased enrollment five to seven years ago would naturally see a spike in graduations now, reflecting past investments in postgraduate education.

Until we know the faculty to student ratio and the number of accredited doctoral supervisors across departments, we cannot judge the feasibility of these numbers. If Nasarawa State University has a large, well-qualified academic staff, producing 400+ PhDs annually is sustainable.

It is therefore hypocritical and lacks critical thinking to isolate NSUK because this scrutiny has not been applied to universities like ABU Zaria, which produced 647 PhDs in a single convocation, or UI with its consistent 400+ annual output? Singling out Nasarawa State University without comparative analysis risks selective criticism and ignores the reality that multiple Nigerian universities are scaling up doctoral training to meet national manpower needs.

In conclusion, we must defend Nasarawa State University by demanding a departmental breakdown, comparing its output with peer institutions like ABU, UI, and MIT, and focusing the debate on quality assurance mechanisms not arithmetic alone. Until evidence of compromised standards is provided, the number 1,677 represents a potential success in expanding Nigeria’s high-level research capacity, not a scandal.

■ Fidelis Duker is Filmmaker/Media Practitioner who writes from Abuja.