Evaluation should reflect a student's actual performance – not be influenced by politics, favouritism or personal bias
Having studied and taught engineering in Nepal, and now pursuing a PhD at the Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Kanpur, India, I've come to realise the deep-rooted problems within Nepal's engineering examination system. The difference between how things work in Nepal and how they're done here in India is striking. My experience at IIT Kanpur has shown me that when exams are well-organised, transparent and student-friendly, it not only helps improve academic performance but also reduces unnecessary stress.
One of the biggest differences is how the academic calendar is managed. At IIT Kanpur, students are provided with a clear and detailed schedule at the beginning of each semester. It outlines everything from the start and end of classes to assignment deadlines, exam dates and holidays. This kind of planning makes it easier for students to balance their academic work with other responsibilities. In Nepal, although academic calendars are published, they are not followed properly. Exams are often announced late, and schedules can change suddenly without any notice. Moreover, there is a lot of confusion due to inconsistent communication, with students often receiving different information from the department head, the exam office or the dean. These issues could be resolved with basic improvements in coordination and transparency.
Another key strength of IIT Kanpur is how student performance is evaluated. From the very start of the semester, students are assessed continuously.
Each course has its own grading structure – whether it's theory-based, practical, or focused on project work. Assessment methods include quizzes, assignments, lab work, presentations, mid-terms and final exams. This encourages real understanding and practical application, not just memorising facts.
After the exams, answer sheets are provided within a day or two. Students can review their evaluations, raise questions and seek clarifications. Final grades are typically published within a week and directly communicated to students via email, instead of being posted on a public notice. If a student is unable to attend the exam on the scheduled date, the rules are flexible, allowing students to take a makeup exam within one week after the final exam, provided they have a genuine reason. In stark contrast, Nepal's exam system is slow and opaque. Answer sheets are collected, coded, distributed to teachers and then decoded after weeks of delay. It is common for students to wait two to six months for their results. If they wish to challenge their marks, they must go through a time-consuming and costly rechecking or retotalling process. In most cases, students never get to see their answer sheets unless they pay extra fees.
The use of digital tools also makes a big difference. At IIT Kanpur, nearly everything – course registration, attendance, grading, and assignment submissions – is done online. Students are automatically enrolled in exams using their ID cards, rather than needing a separate examination entrance card. This cuts down on paperwork and eliminates long queues. In Nepal, students still have to fill out forms by hand, stand in lines, and go from office to office for even the most basic tasks.
Another weak point in Nepal's system is the way practical exams are handled. Many colleges don't have proper lab facilities or enough equipment. As a result, students often go through the motions of an experiment without actually doing it themselves. There's little hands-on learning, and grading can be unfair or biased. This discourages students and doesn't help them build the skills they need in their careers.
Nepal's exam system also puts too much emphasis on rote learning. Students are often more focused on simply passing than on truly understanding the subject. Many rely on old question papers because similar questions repeat year after year. This leads to selective studying and discourages deep thinking. In contrast, IIT Kanpur encourages students to think critically, engage with new ideas and solve real-world problems.
Evaluation should reflect a student's actual performance – not be influenced by politics, favouritism or personal bias. When marks are decided by anything other than merit, it creates chaos and discourages sincere students. There are also ethical concerns in Nepal, such as leaked exam papers, political pressure and exam cancellations. These incidents severely damage the credibility of the education system. At IIT Kanpur, exams are conducted in a calm, professional environment. Communication is clear, and both students and faculty understand their roles, creating an atmosphere of trust and respect.
Internship evaluations in Nepal also leave much to be desired. Many students are not properly supervised, and no one verifies whether they are learning on the job. This makes internships a formality rather than a meaningful learning experience. A proper system of guidance, monitoring and evaluation would greatly enhance their value.
Despite having large numbers of students, IIT Kanpur manages evaluations efficiently. Professors use grading rubrics, and often PhD students or teaching assistants grade with clear rubrics. This system is fair, consistent and transparent. Nepal could benefit from adopting a similar approach. Master's students on full scholarships could be engaged in evaluation support roles. Professors should be made directly responsible for evaluations, while the exam office can limit its role to verifying and publishing marks.
Another important reform would be to avoid repeating mid-term content in final exams. In Nepal, exams stretch on for months unnecessarily. If final exams tested only new topics, the exam process could be completed in a week. Long exam durations disrupt learning and increase anxiety. Moreover, there needs to be a cultural shift in how exams are perceived. The attitude that "everyone must suffer as I did" only perpetuates harmful practices. Exams should support and measure learning, not serve as a burden.
True reform requires more than procedural changes – it demands a change in mindset. A good place to start is at the postgraduate level. Pilot reforms can be implemented in master's programmes, where the system is more flexible. Transparent, efficient and student-centred evaluation systems would allow students to graduate on time and reduce unnecessary workloads for staff.
Neupane is Assistant Professor at Mid-West University, Nepal
