JAMB’s UTME Admission Process: Unsolicited Suggestions for Improvement. By Prof A. A. Ammani

This week, an ardent reader of my column,  who is also a friend and colleague, Prof. A. A. Ammani, requested permission to use my column as a guest writer. I considered the subject of his discussion and believe the issue is essential, especially for the young Nigerians who annually write JAMB’s UTME in hundreds of thousands, if not millions. I hope the officials of JAMB and other relevant stakeholders will find the suggestions helpful in improving the efficiency of the entrance examination. Prof. Ammani was the reviewer of my book, SAA: Three Decades of Fight Against Hunger and Poverty in Nigeria, which was unveiled last year. Happy reading.

Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) has just commenced the 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) for prospective candidates. Since its establishment in 1978, JAMB has made commendable progress in streamlining and digitizing the admissions process. For instance, candidates can now write the exams digitally and monitor their admission status via the JAMB portal. If offered admission, a candidate can either accept or reject the offer. If not admitted, there is room to apply for a change of course, institution, or both. Nonetheless, there is still room for improvement in the process.
First, simply informing a candidate whether or not they have been admitted is not enough. It would be more transparent and constructive if JAMB also provided reasons why a candidate was not accepted, whether due to low scores, insufficient subject combinations, competition in a specific course, or institutional quotas. This would help candidates understand where they went wrong, what to improve on, and how to make better-informed decisions in the future. If JAMB has truly come this far, then taking this additional step towards greater transparency should not be too difficult, and it will go a long way in building trust and guiding aspiring students more effectively. In the interest of transparency and fairness, JAMB should consider integrating a feedback mechanism into the Central Admissions Processing System (CAPS). This feature would allow candidates not offered admission into their chosen course or institution to receive clear, specific reasons for the decision. For instance, when a candidate sees a “Not Admitted” status, the system could display explanatory feedback such as: “You were not admitted because your UTME subject combination does not meet the requirements for the selected course.” Your UTME score of [PQR] is below the minimum acceptable score of [XYZ] for this course within the institution’s catchment area.” Your UTME score of [PQR] is below the minimum score of [XYZ] for candidates from outside the institution’s catchment area.” Providing such detailed explanations would boost confidence in the process and help candidates make better-informed decisions in the future. It affirms that the admission process is merit-based, transparent, and fair.
Second, during the recently concluded admission exercise, I observed that some universities issued Bulletins informing candidates that specific programmes had reached their admission quota. These Bulletins advised affected candidates, particularly those not admitted into their first-choice programmes, to apply for a change of course through JAMB, directing them to less-subscribed programmes. Often, these announcements included a list of such under-subscribed courses to help guide candidates in making new choices. I know of a candidate who, during the 2024 exercise, scored 263 in the UTME and applied for Civil Law as his first choice. Despite his relatively high score, he was not admitted nor considered for Sharia Law, a related course where candidates with scores below 220 were accepted. Instead, he was advised to switch to Social Studies or Literature. I am not comfortable with the current arrangement because at the point of application, JAMB allows each candidate to select preferred institutions and courses of study. For instance, a candidate could choose two courses across three universities in our time. I vividly remember my own choices: first, University of Sokoto (MBBS); second, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (BSc Chemistry); and third, University of Maiduguri (BSc Chemistry). When the University of Sokoto did not offer me admission, my application was automatically considered by ABU, my second choice, where I was eventually provided admission into BSc Chemistry. That is how the system should work. If a candidate is not admitted into their first-choice institution or course, the application should be automatically forwarded to the second and, if necessary, the third choice. Today, candidates are allowed to choose up to four institutions across Nigeria. However, in practice, only the first choice is typically considered. If the candidate is not admitted, they must apply (and pay) for a change of course or institution to be reconsidered. This has led to the growing trend of institutions issuing special bulletins encouraging candidates to apply for a change of course. Part of the problem lies in the differing timelines of admission processes across institutions. Sometimes, when a candidate’s first-choice institution begins admissions, the second or third-choice institutions may have already concluded theirs. To resolve this, JAMB should introduce an annual admissions timetable that streamlines the commencement and conclusion of admission processes across all institutions. Whether an institution is in or out of session, all should have completed their first, second, and third rounds of admissions by a specified date. This would allow the UTME scores of candidates who are unsuccessful in one institution or course to be automatically forwarded to their following preferred choices without unnecessary delays or fees. This is my second suggestion for improving the current admission process.
Third, as a concerned citizen and beneficiary of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), I suggest that JAMB revisit the current policy and structure surrounding Post-UTME examinations/screenings across Nigerian tertiary institutions. Currently, candidates are only allowed to sit for the Post-UTME screening of their first-choice institution, which typically occurs within a fixed window. However, this raises several critical concerns: What happens to candidates whose first-choice institution does not offer admission after participating in its Post-UTME? Are they also expected to have sat for Post-UTME screenings in their second or third-choice institutions? Will these other institutions accept the Post-UTME score from the first-choice institution? If their second or third-choice institutions have already concluded their Post-UTME by the time the first choice rejects the candidate, what recourse does the candidate have? As it currently stands, this system potentially closes the door on admission opportunities for thousands of qualified candidates, simply because of timing and logistical constraints. Therefore, JAMB (a) should clarify and standardize the Post-UTME policy across all institutions. (b) Allows or facilitates a universal Post-UTME score that multiple institutions, similar to the UTME itself, could accept. (c) Creates a structured calendar or flexible schedule that ensures candidates have a real opportunity to pursue admission through their second and third choices.
If accepted by JAMB, these suggested reforms would not only enhance fairness and transparency but also reduce the emotional and financial burdens on candidates and their families. This write-up is my humble, unsolicited contribution toward enhancing the achievement of JAMB’s motto, service and integrity, in discharging its responsibilities to the Nation.

Aliyu A. Ammani, U/Shanu Kaduna, aaammani@yahoo.co.uk