UTME: Outdated? Why JAMB’s Once-a-Year Exam Needs Urgent Reform in Today’s Nigeria

Concern has once again been raised by the recent announcement of the results of the 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME). More than 1.5 million of the roughly two million applicants who took the test fell short of the cutoff score of 200 out of 400, or 50% of the total. This result has spurred more discussions over the test’s difficulty, Nigeria’s deteriorating educational standards, and students’ apparent lack of seriousness.

These conversations are crucial, but they ignore a serious structural weakness in the system—the inflexibility of JAMB’s annual exam schedule. In a time when flexibility and numerous chances for success are valued in educational processes around the world, JAMB’s insistence on a single-sit, high-stakes exam is not just out of date but unfair.

Candidates are overburdened by the current system, which does not allow for flexibility. The only option available to a student who becomes ill on test day, has logistical difficulties, or experiences technological difficulties during the Computer-Based Test (CBT) is to wait a full year before trying again. Some applicants may be unable to register in time due to financial limitations, so they are excluded from the admissions cycle for that year.

Even for those who do take the test, there is tremendous pressure to perform well in a single sitting because failing to meet the cut-off point could result in them having to choose less competitive programs or schools or missing their entire academic year.

Standardized exams like the SAT, GRE, and ACT allow repeated sittings within a year, lessening excessive pressure on candidates and offering a fairer assessment of their abilities. This all-or-nothing approach is in contrast to global best practices.

Beyond the personal struggles that each student faces, there is no denying the system’s logistical burden on JAMB. It is an enormous undertaking with many operational difficulties to organize an exam for about two million applicants in one session. The already stressful experience for candidates is made more difficult by frequent reports of technical malfunctions or subpar amenities.

Many students must travel significant distances to get to their designated centers, often at considerable personal risk. They may have to drive on dangerous roads or get up as early as five in the morning to make it in time. The administrative load would be greatly lessened if JAMB adopted a multiple-sitting strategy, for instance, by giving tests in March, August, and November.

Better resource management, fewer logistical errors, and more overall efficiency would all be possible with smaller, spaced batches.

“The administrative burden would be greatly decreased if JAMB adopted a multiple-sitting model, for instance, administering exams in March, August, and November.”

This proposal’s detractors would claim that regular exams could lower standards or encourage pupils to prepare shoddily. But this worry is unjustified. Multiple sittings are already held annually by other major examination bodies, like WAEC and NECO, with no discernible drop in quality or delivery.

Maintaining strict control and making sure that every sitting upholds the same high standards of honesty are crucial. Additionally, by enabling institutions to keep their intended cut-off marks rather than lowering them to meet admission quotas and giving students ample study time to get ready for the next diet without losing sight of the subject, numerous sittings could increase educational standards.

Under the existing system, the once-a-year examination bottleneck limits the pool of qualified candidates, forcing many universities to accept students with scores as low as 120, well below their desired benchmarks. Institutions could afford to be more selective and maintain academic standards if students had more chances to retake the UTME in the same year.

From an economic standpoint, JAMB would also profit from a multiple-sitting arrangement. To raise the board’s revenue, candidates who want to raise their scores would sign up for later sittings. JAMB might function as a continuous assessment body, distributing its operations and revenue more fairly throughout the year, as opposed to treating the UTME as a once-yearly event with overwhelming demand.

Additionally, this would lessen the financial strain on guardians and parents, who frequently find it difficult to collect registration fees by the deadline. Ultimately, there would be another chance to sign up their wards for a different test diet that year without wasting any more time.

Most significantly, switching to an annual multiple-examination system is consistent with the accessibility and equity tenets that ought to be the cornerstones of any respectable educational system. Nigerian kids shouldn’t be forced to stake their futures on their performance on a single day. One day. Just one sitting. One opportunity. Education is not a privilege that depends on ideal circumstances; it is a right. It is standard practice for testing systems to be flexible enough to account for human factors, stress, health, and unanticipated events. If Nigeria wants to generate graduates who can compete worldwide, it must follow suit.

Reforming JAMB’s examination model is justified for reasons of fairness, efficiency, and advancement rather than just convenience. As a country working to modernize its educational system, we cannot afford to hold onto antiquated methods that limit our potential. Now is the moment for JAMB to change and give students multiple opportunities to achieve their goals. Nothing less is acceptable because the risks are too great.