Are Sciences Becoming Too Cheap? A Hard Look at UNEB, A-Level Results and Uganda's Future Professionals

We need to have a serious conversation about the Uganda National Examinations Board (UNEB).

Over the past two to three years, this year included, something has changed in how science subjects perform at A-level. Combinations that used to be reserved for the brightest students are now producing top grades in numbers that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. Meanwhile, arts subjects look harder by comparison and less attractive to students.

We should be asking why this is happening and what it will cost us as a country.

The Evidence Is in the Results

Take last year as an example. BCM (Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics) was the best-performing combination of all, and it did so well that some students with 19 points, just one point short of the maximum, could not get good courses on government sponsorship.

Think about what that means. A student scores 19 out of 20 in one of the toughest combinations on offer and still misses out on the course they wanted. That isn't one exceptional school having a good year. It's crowding at the very top: so many students scoring so highly that the cut-off points for science courses have shot up.

Ten years ago a 19 in BCM would have opened almost any door. Today it doesn't guarantee one.

Who Is Taking Science Now?

The second part of the story is who is choosing science combinations.

Traditionally, PCB, BCM and PCM were known as combinations for students who were above average. These were mostly learners who finished O-level with aggregates between 8 and 15, the strongest performers in the country. Science at A-level was demanding, and schools and parents advised students accordingly.

That's no longer the case. Now nearly everyone takes these combinations, whatever their O-level results. And the surprising part is that many of them go on to pass highly at A-level.

Getting 18 points in BCM is now normal, and not only at well-known, well-funded schools in Kampala. It happens at small, little-known schools deep in the village, schools that lack well-equipped laboratories, enough qualified science teachers or reliable electricity.

When results like these are spread so evenly across schools with such unequal resources, we have to ask what is driving them.

Three Possible Explanations

There are really only three ways to explain what we are seeing.

1. Are students becoming too smart?

Possibly. Every generation has more access to information than the last: YouTube tutorials, revision apps, WhatsApp study groups and past papers shared online. Students today can find explanations that earlier generations never had.

But is that enough to explain such a big jump in only two or three years? Human intelligence doesn't change that fast, and the jump is happening in villages where internet access is still limited.

2. Are teachers becoming too good at teaching?

Again, possibly in part. Teachers have become very skilled at preparing students for exams: drilling past papers, predicting questions and teaching to the test. The government has also put more focus on science teachers, including the 2022 pay rise for science teachers.

But better exam preparation is not the same as deeper understanding. And it's hard to believe teaching quality in under-resourced rural schools has suddenly caught up with the country's best schools.

3. Is UNEB making sciences too cheap to attract students?

This is the explanation I find most convincing (you're welcome to reach your own conclusion).

If exams become easier, or marking and grading become more generous, results go up everywhere at once, in well-resourced and poorly resourced schools alike. That is the pattern we're seeing. Easier papers, softer grading or adjusted grade boundaries would all produce exactly this: more top grades, spread widely, in a short time.

If It's Deliberate, Why?

This leads to a bigger and more uncomfortable question: is there a deliberate reason to push students away from arts subjects?

If so, the reason is probably policy. For years Uganda's government has put sciences first, in sponsorship, in teacher pay and in public messaging about the country's development needs. The thinking is that a growing economy needs more engineers, doctors, technicians and scientists, and fewer graduates in fields seen as having limited job prospects.

In that light, making sciences look easier to pass is a powerful tool. Students follow results. If science combinations produce better grades and better university placement, students will choose them, and arts classrooms will empty without anyone officially telling students to avoid the arts.

The goal of more scientists may be well-intentioned. But if this is how it's being achieved, the method raises serious concerns.

The Danger: Professionals Who Aren't Ready

This is my main worry.

If average students are being pushed into courses that genuinely need strong ability, and passing them with grades that suggest excellence, we risk producing engineers, doctors and other critical professionals who are not properly prepared for the work they will do.

These are not ordinary jobs. A doctor diagnoses and treats patients. An engineer designs bridges, buildings and power systems. A pharmacist dispenses medicine. In these professions, a gap in understanding doesn't just mean a bad grade. It can mean lost lives.

A-level grades are meant to signal readiness. When they are inflated, universities can no longer tell the truly prepared student apart from the one who was carried through by an easier exam. Problems that should have been caught at A-level move into lecture halls, then into hospitals and construction sites.

There's a second cost too. Every student pushed out of the arts is one fewer future lawyer, economist, teacher, journalist, historian or policymaker. A country needs people who can govern, write, argue, analyse society and hold institutions to account. Losing them would be its own kind of disaster.

What Needs to Happen

I'm not against more Ugandans studying science. The country needs them. But it needs competent scientists, not just more of them. So here are some fair questions for UNEB and the Ministry of Education:

• Transparency on grading. UNEB should publish clear information on how grade boundaries are set each year and whether they have changed.
• Independent review. An independent body should compare the difficulty of recent science papers with those from five to ten years ago.
• University feedback. Universities should report whether first-year science students today are better or worse prepared than before. Their experience is the real test of A-level results.
• Honest career guidance. Students should be advised based on their real strengths, not pushed into combinations because they look easier to pass.
• Respect for the arts. Arts subjects need investment and recognition so they stay a real, attractive choice rather than a fallback.

The Other Side of the Argument

To be fair, many people disagree with this reading:

• Some argue that better results reflect real gains from government investment in science education: more labs, better-paid teachers and stronger focus.
• Others note that more students taking sciences naturally means more high scorers, simply because the pool is bigger.
• Some educators argue that old exams were unnecessarily hard and that the subjects are now being tested more fairly.
• And without published data on paper difficulty and grade boundaries, any claim that exams have become "cheap", including mine, is an interpretation rather than a proven fact.

These are reasonable points, and they are exactly why we need open data and honest discussion rather than guesswork from either side.

Final Thoughts

So here is the question for every parent, teacher, student and policymaker: are we raising a generation of truly capable scientists, or just a generation with impressive science grades?

The answer matters for what happens in our hospitals, on our roads and in our buildings for decades to come. Let's start talking about it now.

What do you think? Are students smarter, are teachers better, or is UNEB making sciences too easy? Share your view in the comments.