For many Nigerian students, gaining admission into the university through the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) is becoming increasingly difficult and frustrating. As a result, many are seeking alternative pathways into higher institutions. One of the most popular and credible alternatives today is the Joint Universities Preliminary Examinations Board (JUPEB). It offers an alternative route for candidates seeking Direct Entry admission into 200 level, allowing successful students to bypass the UTME administered by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB).
What is JUPEB?
JUPEB operates like a foundation or pre-degree programme. Candidates are required to choose subjects related to their intended course of study. At the end of the programme, students write the JUPEB examination. Their performance determines eligibility for Direct Entry admission into 200 level. Unlike UTME where one examination score largely determines admission chances, JUPEB involves continuous academic assessment over several months.
Over time, JUPEB has become widely used across several Nigerian universities, including the University of Lagos (UNILAG), the University of Ilorin (UNILORIN), Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), and Osun State University (UNIOSUN). These institutions run affiliated centres where candidates are taught and examined before applying for admission into participating universities.
History and Alternatives
JUPEB was formally established in April 2014 by a consortium of 10 partnering universities, led by UNILAG. It was approved by the Federal Government in December 2013, with the first examinations conducted in August 2014. It was created to provide a 10-month Advanced Level (A-Level) programme for Direct Entry admission into 200 Level in Nigerian and foreign universities, following the suspension of diploma programmes by the National Universities Commission (NUC). Another alternative is the Interim Joint Matriculation Board (IJMB). Both are advanced-level programmes that allow secondary school graduates to bypass UTME. IJMB was established in 1976 and is governed by Ahmadu Bello University. JUPEB is much newer, but both certificates are legally accepted nationwide, though specific preferences exist. For instance, UNILAG and OAU do not accept IJMB results, strictly preferring JUPEB. Conversely, northern universities heavily favour IJMB.
Challenges Facing JUPEB Candidates
JUPEB faces challenges such as administrative, financial, and logistics issues that impact both students and the credibility of the programme. The board has experienced issues with the timely release of examination results, leaving many candidates stranded. These delays sometimes prevent students from catching the university admission window, defeating the purpose of the scheme. The programme is expensive, with total costs—including tuition, accommodation, and books—sometimes exceeding N500,000.
In 2019, a candidate who obtained the maximum 16 points applied for admission into the University of Ilorin. The application process, including post-UTME screening, was completed within the stated requirements. At the point of result submission, access to the university admission portal had already been closed. Although JUPEB results are released centrally, universities do not always open their submission windows at the same time. Some institutions allow earlier access to candidates within their own centres, while others open and close portals independently. This creates a situation where eligibility based on academic performance does not guarantee access to the next stage of the admission process.
Official Perspective
Responding to how candidates are formally considered for admission, Professor Ibrahim Kayode Adams, Director of the JUPEB Foundation School at the University of Ilorin, explained that the process follows a standard structure across universities. According to him, “candidates who meet the academic requirements are expected to apply through the JAMB Direct Entry form and sit for post-UTME screening. Once they meet the required standard, they are considered for admission, as the system is designed to be open and non-discriminatory.” Yet, this formal structure does not fully resolve the challenges experienced by candidates, particularly around timing and access to result submission.
Addressing complaints from candidates who reported being unable to upload their results, Adams clarified that the “process is not controlled by individual universities.” He explained that result “uploading is done through the JAMB portal, rather than a university specific platform. As a result, admission processes may already be underway before some candidates are able to upload their results.” He noted that this situation affects not only external candidates, but also students within the university’s own JUPEB programme. Adams pointed out that candidates must act promptly once uploading becomes available, as failure to upload within the relevant window makes them ineligible for consideration.
He disclosed that affected candidates may still explore other opportunities to upload using JAMB. He said: “The examination body may reopen its portal to allow candidates complete their submissions after verification processes are concluded. In such cases, candidates who upload later can still be considered.” However, he acknowledged that many external candidates are unaware of this possibility, and often abandon the process or move to other institutions owing to uncertainty and lack of direct communication. On whether a more structured communication system could be introduced, Adams noted that the responsibility does not lie with individual universities. “Since the uploading process is centralised, any form of notification would need to come from JAMB, and apply uniformly to all JUPEB candidates rather than being tied to a specific institution.”
Performance and Admission Outcomes
Beyond issues of timing and access, the question of how performance translates into admission outcomes remains central. Adams described the process as largely predictable in terms of admission itself, but not necessarily in relation to course placement. He noted that there is a clear distinction between gaining admission into a university and securing a place in a preferred course. According to him, candidates are assessed using a combination of factors, including their JUPEB scores, O’level results, and departmental quotas.
This dynamic was evident in 2023 at OAU, where candidates from JUPEB centres recorded high scores, with several attaining between 15 and 16 points. Despite these results, some candidates were unable to secure admission into highly competitive courses such as Medicine. The institution indicated that limited slots within such programmes required an additional layer of selection. As a result, candidates with high JUPEB scores were subjected to further internal screening to determine final placement, and not all were admitted.
Candidates are advised to confirm the latest admission requirements of their preferred institutions before applying. JUPEB remains a recognised pathway to Nigerian universities and continues to serve thousands of candidates each year. However, experiences across different cohorts and institutional clarifications showed that the relationship between academic performance and admission outcomes is not always direct. Instead, it is shaped by a combination of centralised processes, institutional requirements, and competitive constraints, leaving some candidates uncertain even after achieving strong results.
Speaking on how performance translates into admission outcomes, Mr Tiamiyu Owolabi, a JUPEB tutor in Islamic Studies at OAU’s Centre for Distance Learning, explained that while strong performance remains important, it does not always translate directly into admission into preferred courses. According to him, once a student is able to get nine points in the past, such a student would secure admission, but highly competitive courses such as Law, Pharmacy, Medicine, and Nursing may require higher points. “Candidates may not be admitted into the desired course if he or she gets less than 15 points.” He added that placement patterns have changed over time. “Currently, if a candidate scores six points, he will be admitted to 100 level, while whoever scores eight will go to 200 level,” he said, noting that some universities have adjusted thresholds internally to accommodate more candidates.
In practice, this creates a layered admission process. Academic performance remains a key requirement, but it operates alongside institutional constraints, timing considerations, and additional evaluation criteria. He noted that the issue of course competition remains a major factor. “Even where candidates meet high score levels, limited spaces in certain departments mean that not all qualified candidates can be placed in their first choice. In effect, the system produces outcomes where performance and placement are not always directly aligned.”
Institutional capacity also plays a role. During the COVID-19 period, for example, some universities indicated that they had reached their quota for Direct Entry admissions due to outstanding admissions from previous cycles. This meant that new applicants within that cycle were affected regardless of their performance.
Across these experiences, a pattern emerged in which admission through JUPEB was shaped by several factors beyond examination scores. These include timing differences in result submission, variation in institutional admission schedules, capacity limits within departments, and internal selection processes that differ across universities. While the official framework presents a standardised and merit-based pathway, the experiences of candidates suggest a more complex reality. The requirement to navigate multiple timelines, monitor centralised portals, and respond to shifting deadlines introduced a level of uncertainty that is not immediately visible at the outset of the programme.
As a result, some candidates now combine JUPEB with JAMB as a precaution, rather than relying on a single route. This reflects a growing view among students that strong performance in JUPEB does not always guarantee admission into preferred programmes or institutions. The key concern raised across the system relates to predictability. Students often question whether high scores are sufficient to secure admission, or whether additional institutional processes and timing issues create uncertainty in outcomes that are expected to be merit-based.
