Stakeholders in South-South region have expressed differing concerns over Post-UTME as some described it as costly and risky and others insist that it is academically necessary. The stakeholders expressed their views in a survey conducted by the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on the use of Post-Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) as a requisite for university admissions.

Some respondents called for scrapping of the Post-UTME due to its induced risks, financial burden on parents and also its illegality. They also called for acceptance of a single examination conducted by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) which they said had been the legal institution authorised for such exams.

On the other hand, some stakeholders applauded the Post-UTME authorised by the universities, describing it as a true test of students’ brilliance, aiding them to do well when they gain admission.

In Cross River, Mr Effanga Ita, a parent, called on the National Assembly to legislate against Post-UTME for its illegality Andoni fraud. He stated that the Post-UTME was not backed by any law which made it illegal, adding that JAMB had been a legal and authorised body to conduct examinations into territory institutions in Nigeria.

Ita said the Post-UTME originated from claims of lack of confidence in JAMB exams by some institutions which made them to introduce the Post-UTME to further test the students’ knowledge. He cited an example of a university in the state which collected N4, 000 from applicants for the Post-UTME but did not conduct the screening. He imagined if 20, 000 applicants had applied for the screening and paid the N4, 000, the school would be making N80 million even when the screening did not hold.

According to him, the entire idea is purely fraudulent and illegal; you cannot have two examinations for one admission; where is that done in the world. Ita, however, said that the allegation against JAMB on compromise was baseless and accused the universities of not accounting for the money made from the POST-UTME.

Prof. Julie Abak of the Faculty of Applied Science in UniCal argued that POST-UTME was a way of standardising whatsoever JAMB was doing. She said when the Post-UTME started, it was welcomed because a lot of students who scored very low in JAMB turned out to be high flyers in the screening and gained admission directly. 

She said that at that time, it corrected the situation where students who scored high in JAMB could not defend the grades when confronted with a strictly supervised Post-UTME. Abak said she would not appreciate the use of aggregates or grades to admit students as such system shut out many good candidates.

According to her, you and I know that many of the high aggregates in WAEC are not genuine, they are aided. By using those results, universities end up admitting students who cheated to the detriment of those who genuinely wrote the exams; that is why I believe Post-UTME may still be the way to go. The only sad thing today is that most universities are now using Post-UTME as their Internally Generated Revenue; they invite huge numbers even when they know many will never make it; that is unwholesome, she said.

In his contribution, Prof Earnest Asikong of the Department of Microbiology in the University of Calabar said that back in history, universities conducted the interviews of their students. He explained that when the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board (JAMB) was established, it became necessary to harmonise and standadise admission into universities.

He said that introducing Post-UTME  was unnecessary at present, adding that many universities that conducted it were gradually abandoning it and using the grading system. I think it just punishes the children who sometimes travel as far as Lagos from Calabar just to take post-UTME after already taking JAMB in their location. You can imagine the burden of travelling long distances in these challenging times of high transport costs, road risks, and other difficulties.

I feel very strongly that universities should adopt the method of using the JAMB results; they can then add other criteria if necessary, just as the University of Calabar is currently adopting, he said. He asserted that it would help children and parents avoid unnecessary risks, double stress and all the challenges associated with university admission in Nigeria.

In Akwa Ibom, some parents in Uyo re-echoed the financial burden and the risks involved in Post-UTME across the country and calls for either scrapping it or adopts the use of CBT-based testing in the screening. In his contribution, Mr Etoro-obong Inyang, a parent, argued that with the risks involved, the Post UMTE had become unnecessary, especially in the era of increasingly use of technology.

According to him, is this really necessary in 2025? With the advancement in technology, shouldn’t remote or CBT-based testing from local centres be considered? If a school knows it only has capacity for 1,000 students, why invite 30,000 candidates? It sounds exploitative and also raises ethical issues, Inyang said.

He said that although universities might want Post-UTME, the current system had flaws that needed to be addressed. He argued that since JAMB had already been conducting a standardised test for all candidates, ‘’why must our children go through another round of testing?’’

Inyang said that Post-UTME added unnecessary pressure on the students, many of whom were already dealing with anxiety from the initial JAMB and the uncertainty of admission. He decried the enormous financial burden of Post-UTME on parents especially when families were struggling economically and described the situation as a major concern.

He further argued that the scheme had become more like a revenue-generating avenue than an academic screening process. He urged the government and educational authorities to reassess the necessity of Post-UTME if JAMB was functioning effectively, and encouraged institutions to use local CBT centres to bring down the risk involved.

Inyang advised the institutions to regulate the number of candidates invited to align with actual admission capacity. Our children deserve a fair, safe and transparent admission system that does not put their lives or their families under unnecessary pressure, he said.

On his part, Thomas Abia, a parent,urged the education boards and policy makers to make JAMB examinations the only requisite for admission into tertiary institutions across the country. He said that the Post-UTME had caused financial discomfort for many families while stress candidates with travel risks. He said that beyond the cost of the forms, students and their families spent heavily on transportation, accommodation and feeding as they travel, sometimes across multiple states, to attend the screening. 

According to him, the main issue is not just cost, but the risks associated with travelling long distances to write examinations. Abia explained that the candidates were exposed to the risk of insecurity and accidents and called for the adoption of technology and online screening if the Post-UTME must be continued. He said, the policy is more exploitative than helpful. In an economy where most households are struggling, this amounts to double or even triple spending after having already paid for JAMB, he said.

Similarly, Mr Tony Ita-Etim, a parent, also called on government to scrap the post-UTME and eliminate the risks the candidates faced as they travel to far places to take the tests. He argued that since it had been an internally conducted examination, it might still be laced with fraud and malpractices. He described the Post-UTME as a duplication of the already existing JAMB, which was established to serve as a standard for admission in the country.

In Rivers, Mrs Chinonye Offor, a parent, called for eradication of multiple exams into universities to cut risks and lessen parents’ financial stress. She said the registration, transport, feeding and accommodation for POST-UTME imposed huge strain on low-income families. She noted that some households spent over N50,000 per child to attend the screenings, excluding feeding, accommodation, and other costs.

Mr Emmanuel Sule, a retired teacher, described the examination as unnecessary duplication of the JAMB process. He said the Post-UTME undermined JAMB’s credibility and opened room for exploitation by institutions.

Mr Paul Aliade, who is a student of one of the universities in the state, narrated how he travelled then from Benue for 15 hours to Port Harcourt for the Post-UTME. He said that the risks of long-distance travel was enormous, majorly due to insecurity Andoni, but said he was lucky to have had a place to stay for the screening.

Miss Perpetua Okonkwo, another student, decried lack of transparency despite scoring high in both JAMB and Post-UTME. She said she scored 290 in JAMB and 80 per cent in Port-UTME but was denied admission for the 2024/2025 session. It remains a mystery why many are invited for screening when institutions already know their admission quota, she complained.

Chief Benson Ebeleakpo, a school proprietor, called for the review of the process to reduce the number of candidates invited. He suggested virtual screening methods to minimise cost and travel risks for applicants.

Reacting to the concerns, a top official of Ignatius Ajuru University of Education (IAUE), who requested anonymity, defended the examination. He said the Post-UTME enabled the institutions to verify candidates’ readiness for academic work beyond their JAMB results. The physical screening allows the university to assess identity, conduct, and seriousness of applicants, he explained. He acknowledged the travel risks but said institutions like IAUE had introduced safety measures during screenings.

On the number of candidates invited, the official said that broad screening ensured fairness and considered catchment areas and merit-based selection. The final admission list is based on performance, quota, and departmental needs, he added.