The Federal Government’s plan to rank universities, polytechnics and colleges of education faces a credibility test over its potential to drive competition, accountability and reforms in Nigeria’s tertiary education system, writes DEBORAH TOLU-KOLAWOLE
For years, Nigerian universities have been assessed largely through the lenses of international ranking organisations, with institutions competing for visibility in global league tables that measure teaching, research, citations, international outlook, industry links and other indicators. But by the end of 2026, the Federal Government hopes to change that dynamic by introducing a national ranking system covering the country’s tertiary institutions.
The exercise, directed by the Minister of Education, Dr Tunji Alausa, and coordinated by the Chairman of the Nigerian Tertiary Education Ranking Advisory Committee, Emeritus Professor Peter Okebukola, is expected to produce a national ranking of universities, polytechnics and colleges of education before the end of the year. The Federal Government has set December 15, 2026, as the deadline for completing the exercise.
The initiative comes at a time when Nigerian universities are making some progress in global rankings but continue to grapple with concerns about research funding, teaching quality, infrastructure, international visibility and institutional reputation.
The recently released 2027 Times Higher Education World University Rankings, for instance, listed 29 Nigerian universities, up from 24 in the 2026 edition. Nigeria also recorded the highest number of ranked universities in sub-Saharan Africa.
While the figures suggest progress, they also raise a broader question about how much rankings alone reveal about the quality and performance of a country’s tertiary education system.
Launching the initiative, Alausa said the proposed national ranking was not intended to be merely another league table showing which institution came first, second or third. Rather, he said, it was designed to stimulate healthy competition, establish benchmarks for institutional performance and ultimately help Nigerian tertiary institutions improve their standing nationally and internationally.
The central question, therefore, is not simply which institution will emerge at the top of the proposed ranking, but how Nigeria intends to measure the performance of its own tertiary institutions and what it hopes to achieve with the results.
A home-grown ranking
According to Okebukola, the committee’s assignment covers the three major categories of tertiary institutions: universities, polytechnics and colleges of education. The proposed university ranking is expected to draw on 22 indicators agreed upon with the League of Directors of Academic Planning.
The decision to extend the exercise beyond universities is significant. While universities have featured prominently in international rankings, polytechnics and colleges of education have largely remained outside the same level of public comparison, despite their importance to national development.
The three categories of institutions serve different but complementary purposes. Universities combine teaching, research and community service. Polytechnics are expected to develop technical and practical skills, while colleges of education play a critical role in producing teachers for the nation’s schools.
A national ranking that recognises these differences could provide a more comprehensive picture of the country’s tertiary education system, rather than reinforcing the perception that university education is the only meaningful measure of academic achievement.
However, the value of the exercise will depend heavily on its methodology. A system that applies identical standards to institutions with different mandates, resources and responsibilities risks producing misleading comparisons.
For the Okebukola-led committee, the challenge is to develop a framework that measures institutional excellence while recognising the distinct roles of universities, polytechnics and colleges of education.
The credibility of the ranking will ultimately rest on whether its indicators are relevant, its data verifiable and its assessment process transparent.
Beyond league tables
Supporters of the initiative argue that a national ranking could provide a practical mechanism for identifying institutions performing well and those requiring intervention. By establishing measurable standards, the exercise could also encourage vice-chancellors, rectors and provosts to pay greater attention to teaching, research, infrastructure and other areas of institutional performance.
Competition is one of the strongest arguments in favour of ranking. When institutions know that their performance will be assessed against agreed standards, they may have greater incentives to improve their services, strengthen research output and invest in facilities.
The idea is not entirely new. Emeritus Professor Ladipo Ayo Banjo, a former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ibadan, advocated a Nigerian ranking system years before the current initiative.
Speaking at a National Universities Commission international lecture in Abuja in December 2016, Banjo argued that Nigeria needed its own ranking system despite the limitations associated with international league tables.
The Guardian reported his position on December 3, 2016, noting that he believed a national ranking could strengthen university monitoring, improve accreditation and stimulate healthy rivalry among institutions.
Nearly a decade later, the argument remains relevant. A national framework could help institutions understand their relative strengths and weaknesses while encouraging them to improve the quality of education they provide.
Dr Abiodun Egbetokun, a senior lecturer at Leicester Castle Business School, De Montfort University, has also argued that an objective ranking system could encourage excellence in Nigerian universities.
He emphasised the importance of institutions communicating their achievements effectively, noting that visibility could help them attract donors, research partners and international collaborations.
“Universities compete not only for students but also for research funding, international partnerships, academics and industry collaborations. An institution that produces excellent research but fails to document and communicate its achievements risks remaining invisible,” he said.
Egbetokun added that a credible national ranking could encourage institutions to improve their data systems and document their achievements more systematically.
The argument highlights an important dimension of institutional performance: achievements must not only be recorded but also supported by reliable data that can be independently assessed.
Yet, ranking systems have their limitations. Critics warn that institutions may become preoccupied with improving their positions on a league table rather than addressing the underlying problems affecting education quality.
An institution could, for instance, concentrate on indicators that attract ranking points while neglecting areas that are equally important to students but less visible in the assessment framework.
Banjo’s earlier concerns about international rankings, particularly their tendency to reduce complex institutions to numerical positions, underscore the need for caution.
For the Federal Government, the task is therefore not simply to produce a list of institutions in order of performance, but to ensure that the exercise encourages meaningful improvements rather than a competition for positions.
The methodology test
The proposed ranking’s credibility will depend on how the committee translates its objectives into a workable assessment framework.
Although the university ranking is expected to use 22 indicators, institutions and other stakeholders will need clarity on how those indicators will be measured, weighted and verified. They will also want to know how the committee intends to account for differences in institutional mandates, funding and resources.
These questions are particularly important because universities, polytechnics and colleges of education cannot be assessed meaningfully through a framework that ignores their different responsibilities.
A credible system must also guard against the influence of institutional reputation, political considerations and unverified claims. Without transparent criteria and reliable data, the ranking could generate controversy rather than encourage improvement.
The committee will therefore need to explain its methodology clearly and demonstrate that the same rules are applied consistently to institutions within comparable categories.
The availability of reliable data is another potential challenge. Institutions must be able to provide accurate information about their performance, while the committee must have a credible means of validating the figures submitted.
Ultimately, the ranking’s authority will depend less on the prestige of those coordinating it than on the quality of the evidence underpinning its conclusions.
Can rankings drive reforms?
The proposed ranking comes against the backdrop of persistent concerns about funding, research infrastructure and the overall quality of tertiary education in Nigeria.
The 2027 Times Higher Education ranking showed that research quality was Nigeria’s strongest pillar, with a mean score of 43.3, while research environment and teaching recorded considerably lower mean scores of 13.9 and 20.6, respectively.
The figures suggest that Nigerian universities are producing research that attracts recognition, but they also point to weaknesses in the environments and systems supporting research and teaching.
For education stakeholders, the implication is that improving the country’s standing will require more than increasing the number of institutions appearing in international rankings. Sustained investment in research, better-equipped laboratories, stronger libraries, improved teaching facilities and more effective institutional management will also be necessary.
Okebukola has repeatedly highlighted research funding, institutional efficiency, international collaboration and visibility as important factors in improving the standing of African universities. Poor investment in research and weaknesses in institutional systems have also been identified as constraints on the performance of many institutions across the continent.
Against this background, the proposed national ranking could serve as a policy tool for identifying gaps and directing interventions. If the committee’s findings are sufficiently detailed, policymakers may be able to determine which institutions require additional support, what areas need improvement and where existing resources are being used effectively.
However, such benefits are not automatic. A ranking that merely announces the positions of institutions without explaining their performance or identifying areas for improvement would offer limited value as a reform instrument.
Its usefulness will depend on whether the results provide actionable information for institutional managers and policymakers.
The exercise could also help prospective students and parents make more informed choices about where to study. Rather than relying solely on an institution’s reputation or popularity, applicants could have access to information about its performance in teaching, research, facilities and other relevant areas.
Even so, rankings should not become the sole basis for choosing an institution. A student seeking technical training may have different priorities from one interested in a research-intensive university. Similarly, prospective teachers may be more concerned about the quality of professional training offered by a college of education than its position on a general league table.
This is why the inclusion of polytechnics and colleges of education could prove particularly important. By assessing institutions according to their respective mandates, the national framework could help demonstrate that different forms of tertiary education contribute to national development in distinct ways.
The exercise could also challenge the longstanding perception that university education is automatically superior to other forms of tertiary education.
From local scorecard to global standing
Beyond its domestic implications, the proposed ranking is linked to Nigeria’s ambition to improve its visibility in global higher education.
The increase from 24 Nigerian universities in the 2026 Times Higher Education rankings to 29 in the 2027 edition represents progress. However, the number of Nigerian institutions featured remains limited relative to the size of the country’s tertiary education system.
A national ranking could provide a starting point for institutions seeking to understand the standards used to assess their performance and identify areas requiring improvement before competing more effectively internationally.
Such a framework could also encourage institutions to maintain reliable performance records, strengthen research management and improve the documentation of their academic achievements.
But a domestic ranking will not automatically translate into better global positions. International league tables use their own methodologies and indicators, while institutional performance depends on factors extending beyond the publication of rankings.
The national exercise should therefore be seen as a possible foundation for improvement rather than a shortcut to international recognition.
Its broader value will depend on whether the Federal Government and institutional leaders use the findings to address structural weaknesses in the education system.
The Okebukola test
For Okebukola, who has spent decades working in higher education policy and quality assurance, the assignment presents an opportunity to establish a Nigerian framework for measuring tertiary education performance. It is also a significant credibility test.
The committee must navigate competing expectations. The Federal Government will want an exercise that demonstrates progress in the sector. Institutions will want their achievements recognised fairly. Students and parents will expect useful information, while academics and education analysts will scrutinise the methodology.
International observers may also assess whether the framework meets credible standards of measurement and transparency.
These competing interests make the design and implementation of the ranking particularly important. If institutions perceive the process as arbitrary, politically influenced or insufficiently supported by evidence, the exercise could struggle to command the confidence required to influence institutional behaviour.
Conversely, a transparent methodology, independently verifiable data and clear explanations of the results could strengthen public confidence in the exercise.
The ranking will therefore be judged not only by the institutions that emerge at the top but also by whether those placed lower down accept the findings as credible enough to inform improvements.
The committee must also guard against the temptation to equate a high position with overall institutional excellence. Rankings are useful only to the extent that their indicators capture the qualities they claim to measure.
For universities, this may mean balancing research productivity with teaching quality and student experience. For polytechnics, the assessment should reflect their technical and practical training mandate. For colleges of education, the quality of teacher preparation must remain central to any meaningful evaluation.
A credible national framework must account for these distinctions without compromising the consistency and transparency of the assessment process.
With the December 15 deadline approaching, the committee faces the task of completing the rankings of universities, polytechnics and colleges of education before the end of the year.
The unveiling will provide the first major public test of the Federal Government’s attempt to establish a national tertiary education scorecard.
For Alausa, the initiative offers an opportunity to move discussions about Nigerian tertiary education away from broad claims about producing world-class institutions towards measurable performance and accountability.
For Okebukola and his committee, it is an opportunity to establish a framework that institutions can trust and use to improve.
For the institutions themselves, the exercise could mark the beginning of a new phase in which performance is more systematically measured, compared and publicly scrutinised.
Ultimately, the success of the initiative will not be determined by how quickly Nigeria produces its first national league table, or by which institution occupies the top position. It will depend on whether the exercise provides a credible basis for improving teaching, strengthening research, directing resources and making Nigeria’s diverse tertiary institutions more effective.