The 150 benchmark used for the 2025 admission cycle has been maintained by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) as the minimum cut-off mark for admission into Nigerian universities and colleges of nursing sciences for the 2026/2027 academic session. The examination body also fixed 100 as the minimum cut-off mark for admission into polytechnics and monotechnics.

The Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME), organised by JAMB, is a major determinant for Nigerians seeking to further their education in tertiary institutions, with the number of candidates rising yearly. With this benchmark, candidates who score 150 are eligible for consideration for university admission in Nigeria.

What does this benchmark mean for Nigerian students?

The JAMB benchmark affects over 2.2 million Nigerians who took the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination in April 2026. Candidates who score 150 and above are eligible for consideration for admission into universities, while polytechnic candidates who score 100 and above also qualify for consideration.

However, this has not been the reality on the ground, as tertiary institutions set their own admission standards. Candidates with scores of 150 or lower are at a disadvantage in securing admission into several top universities compared to their counterparts with higher scores. UTME remains highly competitive in Nigeria, as even candidates with higher scores sometimes fail to gain admission into their preferred institutions.

The UTME highest score is pegged at 400, and the 150 benchmark represents 37.5%. Many Nigerians have described this policy as a move that could lower the standard of education in the country. An X user identified as @fazasiolobi said, “When the bar keeps getting lowered, many students will no longer feel motivated to push themselves for outstanding results, because average scores may now seem enough.”

JAMB’s admission benchmark has not witnessed significant changes in the past five years. While the benchmark was 140 for universities from the 2022/2023 admission cycle, it increased to 150 in 2025 and has been maintained in 2026.

Education expert Blessing Ahmodu describes the benchmark as a “double-edged sword” that exposes both institutional failure and declining standards of education in the country.

Policy could widen gaps in the education sector

Blessing noted that while the policy may be seen as an attempt to expand access to higher education, it also risks lowering academic standards if underlying issues are not addressed. According to her, reducing the cut-off mark only treats the symptom rather than the root cause of declining confidence in formal education.

She explained that many graduates leave school without employable skills, while some academic programmes lack practical relevance, pushing students toward vocational skills that offer more reliable means of survival.

She further highlighted persistent instructional gaps, particularly the dominance of abstract teaching methods that limit students’ ability to fully grasp and apply concepts.

“Access will naturally improve when the system delivers value and measurable outcomes,” the expert stated, adding that although lowering the benchmark may increase participation, it could also raise concerns about the quality of graduates being produced, especially as some institutions already operate with relatively low internal screening standards.

On the role of the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME), Blessing maintained that while the exam does not capture the full range of a student’s abilities, it remains an important assessment tool.

The expert also emphasised that the examination process itself tests resilience, noting that the ability to prepare, focus, and perform under pressure is a meaningful indicator of readiness for university-level education.

Addressing concerns about inequality, the expert pointed out that affordability remains a more significant barrier to higher education than admission benchmarks. She explained that while lowering the cut-off mark may encourage wider participation, it does little to address the economic realities faced by many Nigerian households.

She warned that the policy could inadvertently widen the gap between public and private institutions, as private universities with more flexible admission processes may absorb candidates who meet the minimum threshold but are unable to secure placements in underfunded public institutions.