The Admissions Gap: Who Gets Into Nigeria’s Tertiary Institutions, and Why It Matters

Nigeria’s Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination is one of the country’s most consequential gateways to higher education and social mobility. In 2026, 2,243,816 candidates registered for the UTME, yet the latest completed admissions cycle shows that a large share of approved tertiary places still went unused.

Because the 2026 admissions cycle is not yet complete, this brief uses the completed 2025 cycle to examine the gap between available capacity and actual enrolment. Across all tertiary institutions, only 1,009,736 of 1,716,154 approved places were filled. That left 706,418 places vacant, even as many candidates continued to experience admissions as intensely competitive.

What the admissions data shows

Approved places filled

58.8%

1,009,736 of 1,716,154 places

Places left vacant

706,418

Across all tertiary institutions

University fill rate

74%

785,180 of 1,060,919 places

Universities recorded a stronger fill rate than the wider system, but still left 275,739 approved places empty. The contrast was sharper outside universities: other tertiary institutions filled only 34.3% of their approved capacity. The evidence therefore points away from a simple national shortage of places.

Why the gap persists

The central problem is a structural mismatch. Approved capacity is not always aligned with the institutions, programmes, locations and pathways candidates prefer, can reach, or are qualified to enter. Some courses and institutions remain heavily oversubscribed while substantial capacity elsewhere goes unused.

The problem is made harder to diagnose because public JAMB datasets do not always report the same admissions cycle in the same way. Applicant counts, approved capacity and completed admissions can appear in separate releases without a single reconciled table. Clearer definitions and consistent, disaggregated reporting would allow policymakers and the public to distinguish genuine capacity constraints from preference, qualification and access barriers.

Two further evidence gaps matter ahead of the 2027 cycle. JAMB has not published sufficiently detailed score distributions that would allow performance to be examined across geography, gender and subject. It has also not published the equity, device and security standards that would govern any Bring Your Own Device approach to testing.

Five recommendations for the 2027 UTME cycle

1. Publish privacy-protected admissions and performance data.
   Release anonymised or aggregated results by state, local government area, geopolitical zone, gender, subject and institution. Each dataset should use clear definitions and include accessible, machine-readable tables.
2. Publish the evidence behind the collectively agreed cut-off mark.
   Make public the analysis and reasoning used at the Policy Meeting to determine the minimum mark, so the decision can be understood and assessed on evidence.
3. Publish an Annual Admissions and Access Report.
   After every cycle, reconcile applicant-level information with capacity utilisation and present consistent year-on-year tables covering applications, admissions, vacant places and access patterns.
4. Pilot and independently assess any BYOD option.
   Use controlled pilots, penetration testing and an independent equity assessment before national implementation. Publish minimum device, cybersecurity, accessibility and support standards in advance.
5. Expand CBT access and readiness support.
   Set measurable infrastructure targets across all six geopolitical zones and provide a free, accessible readiness module. The module should help candidates prepare without becoming another barrier to registration.

What these reforms would change

Together, these measures would give JAMB, institutions and the public a more accurate picture of who is applying, where capacity is going unused and which barriers prevent candidates from converting available places into enrolment. Better evidence would also strengthen the legitimacy of cut-off decisions and reduce the risk that technology changes deepen existing inequalities.