JAMB’s fiasco is horrible, but it’s not unexampled

Published by

2 hours ago

The server glitch that led to unnaturally high failure rates in Lagos and southeast states in Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board’s Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) has alarmed the nation and provoked intense, impassioned debates about the integrity of computer-based standardized tests.

There are also the predictably shallow, bigoted attacks on the ethnicity, religious affiliation, and field of scholarly specialization of the JAMB registrar, Professor Is-haq Oloyede. I have chosen to transcend this chauvinistic folderol and instead look at the bigger picture.

There is no question that the technical malfunction in JAMB’s server that almost imperiled the dreams and hard work of prospective undergraduates is inexcusably horrid. It’s even more outrageous that in the immediate aftermath of this tragedy, the minister of education was quoted as saying that the mass failure was proof that the government had found a foolproof formula to break the “exam malpractice ecosystem.”

But, as I will show shortly, what happened in Nigeria is not unprecedented in the world. It also does not constitute sufficient grounds to impute untoward motives to JAMB or its officials. Or to demand the JAMB registrar’s resignation.

Here in the United States, on March 9 this year, a technical glitch in the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), which is somewhat equivalent to Nigeria’s UTME, caused many test takers to prematurely submit their answers. That led to scores of students getting subpar scores that won’t be enough to get them entry into universities.

The College Board, which administers the SAT, apologized and gave students an opportunity for a cost-free do-over. It gave test takers a full refund of their registration fees. It also gave them a voucher “for a free registration for a future SAT administration,” according to Forbes of March 10. Nobody resigned because of it.

On April 8, an even devastating technical failure hit the American College Testing (ACT) exam, another standardized university admission test that is a competitor to the SAT. During an online test, up to 11,000 secondary school students in the midwestern state of Illinois could not complete their test because of a sudden server malfunction.

ACT’s computer system went down and either delayed start times or caused some sections of the exam to freeze midpoint.

In an official statement, ACT “sincerely apologizes for the disruption,” acknowledged the “impact any technical issues have on schedules, student experience, and instructional time,” and provided vouchers for a future national ACT test date in June or July at no cost to students. They have another chance to improve their college admission scores. The ACT’s head has not resigned because of this.

The Law School Admission Test, or LSAT, the standardized test required to get admission into law schools in the United States, also experienced a well-publicized technical failure in 2020 when it transitioned from paper-based testing to online testing.

A glitch in the system caused the answers that test-takers chose not to be recorded, which meant automatic failure for several people affected.

The Law School Admission Council, which administers the LSAT, admitted the error, apologized, made amends by rescheduling a make-up exam for affected students, and promised to investigate and address the cause of the technical mishap.

Earlier, in July 2019, the LSAT’s initial switch from paper to tablet-based testing in test centers also saw technical hiccups.

Some tablets crashed or froze. This forced LSAC to let students cancel their score and retake the test for free. The head of the LSAC didn’t resign because of this.

Nor is this limited to the United States. I only started with the United States because I live here. The United Kingdom, our former colonizer, has also had its own share of digital platform failures during standardized university entrance examinations.

For example, in October 2023, Oxford University’s admission test for prospective undergraduates was hampered by severe technical and administrative glitches. The university chose to change Cambridge Assessment Admissions Testing as its test provider for a new provider called Tata Consultancy Services.

This turned out to be an epic disaster.

According to an October 23, 2023, report by Cherwell, which bills itself as “Oxford’s oldest independent student newspaper,” Oxford’s test for final-year secondary school students was chaotic, marred by technical glitches, and “led to distress amongst applicants.”

It was so disordered that “The paper for the English Literature Assessment Test (ELAT) was reportedly from the previous year.” That’s equivalent to answering UTME questions from last year because technical glitches prevented this year’s questions from appearing on your screen. Meanwhile, you will be graded based on the answers for this year’s questions, which you haven’t seen.

The paper quoted a final year high school student who took the test as venting the following outrage on Twitter: “We look forward to a written apology and statement about the progress of these tests today. Not only with technical errors, but also the error on the ELAT. Students have prepared for these for months, so rapid response is necessary to assure them they will not be disadvantaged.”

The student paper reported that some test sessions were so delayed that backup paper test booklets had to be delivered. For example, the Math Admissions Test (MAT) was eventually given on paper after a two-hour wait when the online system couldn’t be stabilized. Even so, Oxford officials were compelled to indicate that affected applicants would be treated with leniency in score interpretation. No one resigned because of this.

It isn’t just advanced industrialized countries that experience technical troubles in standardized tests similar to what happened to this year’s UTME.

India, a country that shares many characteristics with Nigeria but is more technologically advanced, has also occasionally grappled with testing glitches. In 2009, India’s transition from paper-based to computer-based testing for its Common Admission Test (CAT)—required for entry into the country’s prestigious Institutes of Management—was marred by widespread software and network problems.

This was made even worse by a malware virus attack that caused about 47 out of 104 test labs to crash on the first day, preventing thousands of test takers from completing the exam. Roughly 10–11% of test takers were affected by crashes or freezing terminals, according to India’s Business Standard newspaper of January 21, 2013.

Charles Kernan, the COO of Prometric, which administered the test, acknowledged the technical glitches, apologized, and worked with schools to reschedule the tests for affected test takers. He didn’t resign.

In January this year, conduct of the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE), India’s key entrance test to study undergraduate degrees in engineering, had glitches and disruptions that altered students’ scores in some parts of the country.

According to a January 22, 2025, news report from The Times of India, the National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducts JEE, acknowledged the glitches and posted an official circular noting a technical snag at one venue and promptly issuing a new exam date for all candidates at the most affected centers. NTA’s head didn’t resign because of this.

My search turned up many other parallels from different parts of the world. I won’t bore the reader with more examples.

My goal, however, is not to lessen or dismiss the gravity of what happened, but to give a broader global context of the failure of technology in test taking and to help rein in the wild emotions this one incident appears to be provoking.

I am glad that the JAMB registrar has accepted responsibility for the failure of JAMB’s system. He has apologized sincerely and has offered immediate restitutive amends to affected students.

Of course, that didn’t happen in a vacuum. The sustained, evidence-based protestations of Alex Onyia, the CEO of Educare, contributed to this. So, Onyia also deserves commendation for vigilant citizenship. I am sure he is not alone.

But it takes a broad, open, and mature mind to invite one’s challenger to the table, give them an opportunity to make their case, admit error when the challenger’s evidence overwhelms yours, then apologize, and make amends. I honestly don’t know what more is expected.

Finally, that a simple, if grievous, technical error in a national test became the basis for the widening of our national fissures and for a vicious ethno-religious smear campaign against an individual is not a surprise to me. But I wanted to move beyond that and show that this isn’t unique to Nigeria.