The Quiet Elitism Behind the NSMQ Debate and Why It Is Wrong
Richlove Oduro’s old comments criticising the NSMQ as “just a show,” made while she was an SHS student is back in the news but the harsh backlash reveals intellectual elitism that wrongly ranks human worth by academic achievement instead of recognising multiple valid forms of intelligence.
Isaac Clad
View author profile Jun 1·523views·5 min read
Opinion
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, editorial policy, or position of Dailyaccra.com, its editors, or its management.
The recent debate surrounding the National Science and Maths Quiz (NSMQ) has revealed something far more important than disagreement over an academic competition. It has exposed a strain of intellectual elitism that continues to shape how many of us think about intelligence, achievement, and success.
The controversy surfaced after comments by photographer and University of Cape Coast student Richlove Oduro, who questioned the significance of the NSMQ, describing it as little more than a show. Importantly, Richlove made these remarks while she was still an SHS student — they are not new. The only reason they are in the news now is because Francisca Lamini, a former NSMQ contestant, is completing her degree at Harvard Summa Cum Laude. Many understandably disagreed with Oduro’s assessment. The NSMQ has inspired generations of Ghanaian students, promoted scientific curiosity, and created opportunities for countless young people. Criticising her opinion is fair game in any healthy public discourse.
What is less defensible is the response that followed.
Among the strongest reactions was a Facebook post by neurosurgeon Dr. Isabella Opoku, who contrasted Oduro with Francisca Lamini, whose academic journey has become a source of national pride. The post celebrated Lamini’s achievements while suggesting that those who criticised the NSMQ were doing so because they lacked the ability, opportunity, or intellectual capacity to participate in it themselves.
The implication was difficult to miss: there are people who excel through academic and scientific pursuits, and there are others who merely point cameras at people and speak from the sidelines.
This way of thinking is not merely unfair. It is intellectually flawed.
The first mistake is the assumption that intelligence can be measured along a single dimension. Modern societies often confuse academic achievement with intelligence itself. We celebrate examination scores, degrees, professional titles, and prestigious institutions, and rightly so. These achievements require discipline, dedication, and talent.
What they do not do is exhaust the meaning of intelligence.
A neurosurgeon possesses extraordinary expertise in understanding the human nervous system. A photographer possesses expertise in visual storytelling, composition, observation, and communication. An entrepreneur understands markets, incentives, and human behaviour. An engineer understands systems. A writer understands language and persuasion.
These are not competing forms of intelligence. They are different expressions of it.
History provides countless examples of why such distinctions matter.
Perhaps no individual illustrates this better than Leonardo da Vinci. Today, he is remembered primarily as a painter, but reducing him to that description would be absurd. Da Vinci was simultaneously an artist, anatomist, engineer, inventor, mathematician, and natural philosopher. His investigations into anatomy improved his paintings. His artistic skill improved his scientific observations. His engineering designs emerged from the same curiosity that drove his artistic work.
Da Vinci's genius did not arise despite his crossing disciplinary boundaries. It arose because of it.
The same pattern appears repeatedly throughout history. Michael Faraday, one of the most influential physicists in history, came from modest educational beginnings and was largely self-taught. Benjamin Franklin was a printer, inventor, writer, scientist, diplomat, and statesman. Their contributions emerged not from rigid academic identities but from intellectual curiosity that transcended conventional categories.
The lesson is clear: some of humanity's greatest advances have come from people who refused to accept that knowledge belongs within neatly separated boxes.
Ironically, science itself demonstrates this truth.
Consider neuroscience, the very discipline from which some of the strongest criticisms have emerged. Neuroscience depends on biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, engineering, computer science, medical illustration, and photography. Modern brain imaging would be impossible without advances in optics and imaging technologies. Scientific discoveries become useful only when writers, educators, designers, and communicators help society understand them.
One of the founding figures of modern neuroscience, Santiago Ramón y Cajal, was not only a scientist but also a gifted artist. His detailed drawings of neurons transformed humanity's understanding of the brain. The visual skills that some might dismiss as merely artistic became indispensable to one of science's greatest breakthroughs.
The relationship between science and other fields is therefore not hierarchical. It is collaborative.
None of this diminishes the value of the NSMQ.
The competition has unquestionably elevated academic excellence in Ghana. It has encouraged thousands of students to take mathematics and science seriously. It has created opportunities and visibility for talented young people. The achievements of contestants such as Francisca Lamini deserve celebration.
But there is a crucial distinction between celebrating excellence and constructing a hierarchy of human worth.
The NSMQ measures a specific type of academic performance. It does not measure entrepreneurial ability. It does not measure artistic talent. It does not measure leadership. It does not measure emotional intelligence. It does not measure creativity. It does not measure the countless other capacities that societies need to thrive.
Winning the NSMQ is impressive. Not winning it is not evidence of inferiority.
The same applies to educational attainment more broadly. Attending Harvard is a remarkable achievement. So is building a successful business. So is creating meaningful art. So is mastering a craft. So is becoming an influential communicator. A healthy society recognises excellence wherever it appears rather than ranking people according to a single standard.
What is perhaps most disappointing about the current debate is how quickly disagreement about an idea became judgment about a person.
If Richlove Oduro's assessment of the NSMQ was mistaken, then the appropriate response is evidence, argument, and persuasion. Explain why the competition matters. Demonstrate its impact. Show the opportunities it creates.
But once the discussion shifts from "your argument is wrong" to "you are less intelligent than us," something important is lost.
The irony is that genuine education is supposed to produce the opposite effect. The more deeply one studies any field, the more aware one becomes of the vastness of what remains unknown. True expertise tends to foster humility because it reveals how dependent every discipline is on countless others.
The scientist depends on the engineer. The engineer depends on the mathematician. The entrepreneur depends on the communicator. The communicator depends on the artist. The artist depends on technologies created by scientists and engineers. Human progress has never been the achievement of a single profession or a single type of mind.
The tragedy of intellectual elitism is that it mistakes specialization for superiority.
The lesson of history is that intelligence has always worn many faces.
The photographer and the neurosurgeon may not possess the same expertise. They may not even agree on the value of a national quiz competition. Yet both participate in the broader human project of understanding, creating, communicating, and contributing.
The truly educated person understands not only the value of their own knowledge, but also the value of knowledge they do not possess. That is why the elitism exposed by the NSMQ debate is not merely unkind. It is wrong.