Registration for the 2025 UTME opened in early February and closed on March 8, 2025, after an official postponement of the exams from the initially advertised January 31 start. JAMB held a preparatory mock exam on April 5, and the main computer-based UTME ran from April 25 through May 5. In mid‑May, the board confirmed that the results would be released on Friday, May 9, 2025, and by that morning, candidates nationwide were checking their scores online and via SMS.
JAMB’s official report showed roughly 1.955 million candidates sat the exam. Shockingly, only about one in five (around 21–22%) reached the usual 200‑point threshold or above, meaning over 78% of test‑takers fell below the expected cut‑off. An even smaller fraction achieved top marks: just 4,756 students (0.24%) scored 320 or higher, and 7,658 (0.39%) scored 300–319. In contrast, fully half of all candidates (over 983,000) were grouped in the 160–199 score band. When JAMB commented on the issue, they, alongside analysts, noted that these figures largely echoed recent trends, noting that last year’s UTME saw 76% of candidates scoring below 200. JAMB’s Registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, has emphasised that the 2025 stats “are consistent with those of the last 12 years”.
In short, the pass rate (above 200) has been declining for over a decade, and this year’s 21–22% is only slightly lower than the 24% recorded in 2024. The lopsided results immediately triggered an online uproar. On social media, thousands of students and parents vented frustration under hashtags like #ThisIsNotMyResult.
One X user posted side‑by‑side screenshots showing a pupil’s score plummeting from 295 in 2024 to just 132 in 2025, warning that “something is seriously wrong with the recently released UTME results”. Similarly, a retired teacher, commenting on his daughter’s case, lamented: “This is devastating. Hard work rewarded this way? Please, there is a serious technical error with JAMB this year”.
These posts, and many like them, expressed doubt that such low scores could reflect genuine student ability or effort. Even some well‑known public figures joined the debate, including former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi commented that the results highlight “deep‑rooted challenges” in the Nigerian education system.
Faced with what it described as a “significant volume of unusual complaints,” JAMB quickly moved to defend its process. Spokesman Fabian Benjamin announced that the board was fast‑forwarding its annual post‑exam review to scrutinise every stage of the examination from registration, testing, to the result release, in light of the concerns.
JAMB assured Nigerians that any verified glitches would be remedied, noting that in cases of genuine CBT failures or power outages, it routinely reschedules affected candidates rather than penalising them. To that end, the board said it had enlisted independent experts from the Computer Professionals Association of Nigeria, university examiners, assessment researchers and more to pore over the complaints and data. Registrar Oloyede himself reiterated that the overall performance was “not peculiar to this year,” and pointed out that 76% of candidates were below 200 just last year and 78% in 2022.
He explained that some score reports had been temporarily withheld for review, which is an understandable and normal quality‑control step, with the promise that once the checks were complete in the following days, all official individual results would be released.
In public statements, JAMB emphasised its commitment to fairness and transparency, and pledged to investigate every claim of error.
Many of the social‑media gripes centred on perceived technical issues. For example, one candidate named Olawanle Timileyin appealed on X for help after missing his exam due to a purported “system error,” saying he had been told to “come next year.”
Meanwhile, JAMB’s official response was blunt, saying “No candidate will be abandoned if a system error occurs”. The Board’s tweets and releases instructed affected candidates to reprint their exam slips for updated schedules, assuring them that any session cancelled by a crash or glitch would simply be rescheduled. JAMB explicitly noted that such accommodations do not apply to candidates who arrive late or miss the exam by choice.
Additionally, when some students initially saw nothing on their online result portal, JAMB explained that this was likely due to their scores being under post‑exam review, not a system outage. The registrar reminded the public that withheld or delayed results are standard when cases are still being verified. In sum, JAMB maintained that its computer‑based testing and processing procedures were sound, and any glitches would be caught and corrected through its expedited checks.
Outside the official statements, educators and parent groups offered their interpretations. The National Parents‑Teachers Association (NAPTAN) bluntly said, “We are all responsible” for the poor outcome. Its president argued that failures reflect failures at every level – under‑performing schools, disengaged parents, and lack of investment – noting that many students now lack support at home and see “shortcuts” to success. University professors voiced similar sentiments. ASUU’s Ex-president, Emmanuel Osodeke, warned that years of neglected school funding would inevitably yield dismal exam results. To quote, he said, “when it is garbage in, it is going to be garbage out,”.
Student bodies, meanwhile, pointed fingers at the timing and pressure of the UTME itself. The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) highlighted that many exams were scheduled very early, often at 6:30 am, causing unnecessary strain. The association’s spokesman urged JAMB to stagger future sessions and start later in the day to ease candidates’ stress.
Analysts also noted broader trends in the exam results. One commentator charted a decades‑long slide. He said in 2007 that about 66% of candidates scored above 200, but by 2025, barely 22% did so. He attributed this decline to systemic issues such as ageing, an undermotivated teaching force and inadequate technology in Nigerian schools. An educationist in Akure observed that many students now “see education as outdated” and spend hours on platforms like TikTok instead of studying. He conceded there is no definitive proof that TikTok use causes low scores, but added that “the correlation is hard to dismiss”.
Officially, however, the government painted a different picture. Education Minister Tunji Alausa publicly hailed the results as evidence that JAMB’s anti‑malpractice crackdown is working. He noted the “high failure rate” as “clear evidence” that new policies are deterring cheating. He implied that the exam itself remained fair, and the abnormally large number of failures was a byproduct of catching students who might have cheated in past years.
As the dust settles, opinion remains divided on what this year’s UTME scores truly signify. Some see the numbers as a painful mirror of Nigeria’s education woes: chronically underfunded schools, unprepared teachers and distracted students all conspiring to produce low scores.
Others ask whether the test has simply become too rigorous or poorly administered, as shown in NANS’ call for more sensible timing, or if falling public confidence in the UTME and the growth of alternative routes like open universities or direct‑entry programs has led candidates to under‑prepare. What is clear is that JAMB’s authorities firmly believe that the exam has not fundamentally changed and that future improvements must come from better teaching and stricter adherence to rules. In their view, the 2025 results are a symptom, not the cause, of Nigeria’s broader educational challenges, further displaying the need for long‑term reforms in Nigerian schools and society alike.