Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The rapid but uneven expansion of higher education in Nepal has raised concerns about whether increased enrolment has been accompanied by improvements in institutional quality. This study aims to assess higher education quality across selected Nepalese universities and examine relationships among key quality determinants. A quantitative approach with a multi-institution case study design was employed. Primary data were collected from 612 students, 248 faculty members, and 36 administrators across six institutions: Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu University, Pokhara University, Purbanchal University, Mid-Western University, and Rajarshi Janak University. A composite quality index (CQI) was constructed using six indicators: infrastructure, faculty qualifications, curriculum relevance, research output, graduate employability, and governance. Indicator scores were normalized and aggregated using weights derived through the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Internal consistency was supported by an overall Cronbach’s alpha of .87. Data were analyzed using ordinary least squares regression, one-way analysis of variance, Pearson correlation, and factor analysis. The results revealed statistically significant differences in CQI scores across institutions (F = 14.62, p < .001). The student–faculty ratio was strongly and negatively associated with departmental quality (r = −.71, p < .01), while faculty qualifications showed the strongest correlation with research output (r = .61). Findings from Rajarshi Janak University indicated that infrastructure and governance reforms offered greater marginal improvements in composite quality than curriculum revision alone. These findings underscore the importance of institutional conditions and faculty capacity in assessing and improving higher education quality. The study proposes a policy-oriented framework for continuous statistical monitoring to inform institutional priorities and guide quality improvement in Nepalese higher education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thakur et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: