The Secondary Education Examination (SEE) has begun, bringing with it the usual mix of pressure and high hopes. The annual exam carries significance that goes far beyond a simple test. For many families, it represents a turning point—a moment that seems to decide a child’s future. The importance of the exam is reflected in the high number of examinees. A total of 512,471 students are sitting for the exams across 1,966 centers, including one in Japan. Kathmandu alone accounts for over 41,000 candidates, while Manang has just 37. Nearly 66,000 students are also attempting to improve past results, underscoring the exam’s wide reach. This year, efforts have been made to make the system more inclusive. Students in juvenile homes are taking the exams, and those with disabilities are receiving extra time and support. Even the answer sheet checking process has been improved, with results now expected within a month instead of three. While this is a welcome development, it raises an obvious question: if results can now be published this quickly, what caused delays in the past? Faster results mean reduced anxiety, less waiting, and fewer months lost in limbo. Schools, invigilators, and officials appear better coordinated this time, but only time will tell whether reality matches the plan to deliver the desired outcomes.
SEE results improve this year with over 61 percent examinees gr...
Despite its significance, many argue that the SEE has become increasingly obsolete. Nepal already conducts a national board exam at Grade 12, and universities and employers place greater emphasis on +2 results. Critics question why a Grade 10 board exam still carries such psychological weight and suggest that it could be reduced to a school-level examination. Repeating a centralized system at Grade 10 may not add value but instead increases stress at an age when students are still developing. Schools could manage internal assessments, allowing continuous and balanced evaluation rather than a single high-stakes test. Supporters of the SEE counter that a national exam sets a common benchmark, keeps schools accountable, and ensures that students in remote districts are measured by the same standards as those in Kathmandu. Without such standardisation, there is a risk of uneven quality and inflated internal marks. In a system already struggling with consistency, removing national-level scrutiny could create more problems than it solves.
Treating SEE as a life-defining event creates unnecessary pressure. Scrapping it without strengthening school-level evaluation could also generate new issues. Authorities need to reduce the psychological burden of SEE on students, parents, and schools while improving internal assessment systems so schools can gradually take on more responsibility. The exam process itself must continue to be refined, prioritizing fairness and consistency over speed. As students enter exam halls, they carry more than admit cards—they carry expectations, fears, and immense pressure from adults. Every student naturally aims for high marks, but authorities must build a system that reinforces an essential truth: one exam does not define a person’s life or potential.
