Nepal's Higher Education Faces Crisis Amidst Student Failures and Systemic Flaws

Nepal's higher education is currently facing serious challenges. On one hand, student migration abroad is rapidly increasing, while on the other hand, questions are being raised about the quality of education in universities, research infrastructure, and the skills acquired by students.

Student enrollment in universities is declining, research and innovation have not developed to the expected level, and the goal of building internationally competitive universities remains distant. In such a situation, the recently published results by Kathmandu University's School of Engineering have initiated a new debate about the current state and future of higher education in Nepal.

After approximately 74 percent of students in the first year of Bachelor of Information Technology (BIT) failed the exam, the same question is being raised from social media to academic circles – are the students weak? Or is our higher education and examination system itself not contemporary and effective?

Facts such as only 61 out of 120 students passing in Civil Engineering and only 21 out of 64 in Geomatics Engineering have further intensified this question.

If a majority of students are failing, it cannot simply be dismissed as 'students did not study'. If such a large number of students are failing, it is natural for questions to arise about the teaching method and examination system.

Many professors from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, and other institutions still value interactive teaching based on chalkboards or whiteboards at the undergraduate level.

It is noteworthy that in Kathmandu University itself, almost all students pass in the third and fourth years of undergraduate level, because the teacher teaching the relevant subject is (unofficially) primarily responsible for the evaluation process.

In reality, this debate is not limited only to Kathmandu University. It is a matter of common concern connected to Nepal's overall higher education. Similar news has been published from Tribhuvan University and other universities from time to time. But the tragedy is that every time, the focus of the debate becomes the students' ability and hard work, while questions are not raised about the teaching method and examination system.

Academic research emphasizes that the examination system should fairly and effectively evaluate students' actual learning, skills, and understanding, but current practices and obtained results do not seem to fulfill that objective.

Most universities in Nepal have adopted the semester system. Its main objective is to ensure continuous learning, regular evaluation, and active student participation. But in practice, we are still unable to escape the mentality of the annual examination system.

Although internal evaluation is done from 25 to 50 percent in many universities, the final decision is still made by the centralized examination. The situation where studies are conducted in the semester system, but the focus of evaluation remains the centralized examination, persists. This seems to push students towards passing the exam rather than understanding the subject matter.

Especially in the last two decades, the PowerPoint-based teaching method has become widespread in universities worldwide. While this has made it easier to present subject matter systematically and quickly, various academic studies have shown that rapid presentations do not encourage deep understanding, critical thinking, and classroom interaction among students. Classrooms have become like seminar halls.

Students cannot assimilate learning at a rapid pace from PowerPoint. The learning process is also about developing the ability to analyze and apply knowledge in practice. Perhaps this is why many professors from leading global universities like MIT, Harvard, and Stanford still value interactive teaching based on chalkboards or whiteboards at the undergraduate level.

The subject teacher should be given complete educational responsibility for the subject. From this perspective, reconsideration of the vast structure of the traditional examination control office also seems necessary.

Continuous evaluation, quizzes, presentations, research-based work, and teacher-student interaction are considered the basis of the semester system. However, these aspects are still weak in many universities in Nepal. As a result, excessive importance is given to the final exam results rather than the overall learning of the students. This encourages rote learning and limits the development of analytical and creative abilities. More importantly, the practice of regularly taking feedback from students to improve the quality of the teaching process has not been established.

The fundamental problem of Nepal's higher education is not limited to the evaluation method; the problem lies in the structure of the examination system itself. Even today, in most universities, examinations are used as a means to measure the reproduction of knowledge. There is no testing of how deeply students understood the subject matter, whether they could analyze it, develop new ideas, or solve real-world problems.

Consequently, the examination has become a formal process for obtaining a certificate rather than a tool for learning. Therefore, it is necessary to transform the examination system from an indicator of rote learning to a means of evaluating analytical thinking, creativity, research ability, and professional competence.

In most universities worldwide, the professor teaching a subject is responsible for curriculum implementation, evaluation of assignments and projects, quizzes, mid-term and final exams, and determining the final grade. Therefore, the teacher is directly accountable for the results of their teaching.

A clear relationship is established between student achievement and teacher performance. However, in Nepal, the teacher who teaches, the teacher who prepares the question paper, and the teacher who evaluates the answer scripts are often different. As a result, a distance has been created between teaching, evaluation, and accountability. The question of who will take the ultimate responsibility for the student's success or failure remains unanswered.

In some universities, the practice of dividing the teaching of the same curriculum among multiple teachers is prevalent, which seems to have eliminated the sense of responsibility. There is no need to discuss the delay in publishing examination results; this problem is familiar to everyone.

The historical roots of Nepal's current examination-centric higher education system are linked to the British colonial education model. The universities of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, established in India in 1857, were primarily established as institutions for conducting examinations and distributing certificates.

Teaching was done by colleges, but the authority to conduct examinations and award certificates rested with the universities. That model was suitable in the context of limited resources and vast geography. However, in the current era of artificial intelligence, digital technology, and global competition, the continuation of this centralized examination system by universities has become a matter for reconsideration.

The success of a university should be measured not just by pass percentages, but by the quality of learning, critical thinking, research ability, and professional competence.

In leading global universities like Harvard, MIT, and Stanford, student evaluation is not solely based on the final examination. The overall learning of the student is evaluated by incorporating class participation, assignments, projects, presentations, analytical ability, mid-term exams, and final evaluations.

Since the professor teaching the subject leads the evaluation process, a direct relationship is established between teaching and evaluation, and accountability towards student learning is also clear.

The main characteristic of the American-style semester system is to make evaluation learning-centric rather than exam-centric. In this system, more importance is given to how well a student can analyze, how much skill they have developed, and whether they can apply knowledge in practice, rather than how many facts they have memorized. Evaluation is seen not as the final test of learning, but as an integral part of the learning process itself.

Research on higher education also supports this conclusion. John Biggs' 'Constructive Alignment' theory emphasizes the need for clear coordination between learning objectives, teaching activities, and evaluation methods. Sadler has pointed out the need for clear criteria and regular feedback for effective evaluation.

Nicole and Macfarlane-Dick consider feedback as the basis for self-regulated learning, while Hattie and Timperley have concluded that feedback plays a decisive role in improving learning. All these studies convey the message that evaluation should be seen not merely as a process of assigning marks but as a tool for improving learning.

Especially with the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI), the weaknesses of traditional examination systems are being further exposed. Examinations that only measure the ability to recall what has been studied are no longer sufficient. Universities need to evaluate analytical thinking, creativity, problem-solving skills, research abilities, and the capacity to apply knowledge in real life. For this, methods such as project-based evaluation, presentations, examinations, and 'authentic assessment' need to be prioritized.

Exam reform is no longer just a matter of academic debate; it has become a national necessity.

The recent results from Kathmandu University cannot be seen merely as the failure of one university or one batch of students. This incident should be understood as an indication of the structural weaknesses present within Nepal's higher education.

If a majority of students are unable to achieve the expected learning outcomes, the responsibility cannot be solely placed on the students. This raises questions about teaching methods, evaluation systems, academic accountability, and institutional reforms simultaneously. Therefore, the current debate should not be about individual failures, but about systemic reform.

If Nepal wants to build competitive universities, it must first implement structural reforms in its examination and evaluation system. The first step of reform is to gradually transform the centralized examination system into a learning-centric system.

The professor teaching a subject should be given complete educational responsibility for that subject. The responsibility for curriculum implementation, assignments, projects, quizzes, mid-term evaluations, final exams, and grade determination should lie with the concerned professor. The university's role should be focused on developing quality assurance standards, external monitoring, and developing a framework for academic accountability. From this perspective, reconsideration of the vast structure of the traditional examination control office also seems necessary.

The debate should no longer be confined to the limited question of whether students passed or failed. The real question is how much students are actually learning and what kind of graduates universities are producing.

The success of a university should be measured not just by pass percentages, but by the quality of learning, critical thinking, research ability, professional competence, and the capacity to produce graduates who can contribute to society.

The transformation from an exam-centric university model to a learning-centric university model is the most important agenda for the reform of higher education in Nepal. Exam reform is no longer just a matter of academic debate; it has become a national necessity.