The recent release of the 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) results has, once again, sparked widespread concern. Out of approximately two million candidates who sat for the exam, over 1.5 million failed to attain the benchmark score of 200 out of 400, which is 50 percent of the total. This outcome has sparked further debates about the difficulty of the examination, the declining standards of education in Nigeria, and the perceived lack of seriousness among students. However, while these discussions are important, they overlook a fundamental structural flaw in the system—the rigidity of JAMB’s once-a-year examination model. In an era where global educational practices prioritise flexibility and multiple opportunities for success, JAMB’s adherence to a high-stakes, single-sitting examination is not only outdated but also unjust.
The current system places an enormous burden on candidates, leaving no room for contingencies. A student who falls ill on the exam day, faces logistical challenges, or encounters technical glitches during the Computer-Based Test (CBT) has no recourse but to wait an entire year for another attempt. Financial constraints may also prevent some candidates from registering on time, effectively shutting them out of that year’s admission cycle. Even for those who do sit for the exam, the pressure to perform optimally in a single sitting is immense, as falling short of their desired cut-off mark means either settling for less competitive courses or institutions or losing an entire academic year. This all-or-nothing approach is at odds with global best practices, where standardised tests such as the SAT, GRE, and ACT allow multiple sittings within a year, reducing undue pressure on candidates and providing a fairer assessment of their abilities.
Beyond the individual hardships imposed on the students by this system, the logistical strain on JAMB itself is undeniable. Coordinating an examination for nearly two million candidates in a single sitting is a herculean task, fraught with operational challenges. Reports of technical failures or inadequate facilities are common, further complicating an already stressful experience for candidates. Many students are forced to travel long distances to their assigned centres, sometimes at great personal risk—navigating unsafe roads or waking as early as 5 a.m. to arrive on time. If JAMB were to adopt a multiple-sitting model, for example, administer exams in March, August, and November, the administrative burden would be significantly reduced. Smaller, staggered batches would allow for better resource management, minimise logistical errors, and enhance overall efficiency.
“If JAMB were to adopt a multiple-sitting model, for example, administer exams in March, August, and November, the administrative burden would be significantly reduced.”
Critics of this proposal may argue that frequent examinations could compromise standards or encourage loose preparation among students. However, this concern is unfounded. Other major examination bodies, such as WAEC and NECO, already conduct multiple sittings annually without any significant decline in quality and delivery. The key factor lies in maintaining rigorous oversight, ensuring that each sitting adheres to the same high standards of integrity. Furthermore, multiple sittings could actually raise educational standards by allowing institutions to maintain their desired cut-off marks rather than lowering them to fill admission quotas and allowing students good study time to prepare for the next diet without losing touch with the syllabus. Under the current system, many universities are compelled to accept students with scores as low as 120, far below their preferred benchmarks, simply because the pool of eligible candidates is limited by the once-a-year examination bottleneck. If students had more opportunities to retake the UTME within the same year, institutions could afford to be more selective, thereby preserving academic standards.
From an economic perspective, a multiple-sitting system would also be financially beneficial for JAMB. Candidates who wish to improve their scores would register for subsequent sittings, increasing the board’s revenue. Rather than treating the UTME as a once-in-a-year event with overwhelming demand, JAMB could operate as a continuous assessment body, spreading its operations and income more evenly across the year. This would also ease the financial pressure on parents and guardians, who often struggle to gather registration fees under tight deadlines. After all, there would be another opportunity to register their wards for another diet of the test within the same year without wasting their time.
Most importantly, transitioning to an annual multiple-examination system aligns with the principles of equity and accessibility that should underpin any credible educational framework. Nigerian students should not have to gamble their futures on a single day’s performance. One day. One sitting. One chance. Education is a right, not a privilege contingent on perfect conditions. By global practice, testing systems are designed to accommodate human variables, stress, health, and unforeseen circumstances by offering flexibility. Nigeria must move in the same direction if it hopes to produce globally competitive graduates.
The argument for reforming JAMB’s examination model is not merely about convenience; it is about fairness, efficiency, and progress. As a nation striving to modernise its education sector, we cannot afford to cling to archaic practices that stifle potential. The time has come for JAMB to evolve—to offer students more than one shot at their dreams. The stakes are too high for anything less.
Sulaimon Olalekan Okewole is a Ph.D. student of educational administration and planning at the University of Lagos. He is the founder of Cardinal E-School and a passionate advocate for digital education reform in Nigeria.
