Brain Circulation · शिक्षा र रोजगारी
The negative return on education
In Nepal, more education can mean less employability. Graduates face higher unemployment than youth with less schooling, employers cannot find the skills they need, and half a million young people leave every year. This is the gap, shown honestly, so it cannot be ignored.
The paradox
A degree should raise your chances. In Nepal, at the margin, it lowers them.
Youth unemployment (2024)
Ages 15–24, ILO-modelled estimate.
University-graduate unemployment
Higher than for youth overall — degrees are not clearing the market.
Youth (15–24) unemployment, broad
Graduates fare WORSE than this — the return on a degree is negative at the margin.
The skills mismatch
The system trains for a certificate, not a capability. The market wants the capability.
Employers who cannot find the skills they need
A shortage of capability sitting next to a surplus of certificates.
Graduates working outside their field of study
The degree and the job have come apart.
Average wait to a first formal job
Most accept informal or underemployment in the meantime.
Where the money went
Invested in expanding technical and vocational education (TVET), yet only about 15% of TVET graduates receive any placement counselling or labour-market orientation. Spend expanded; the bridge to a job did not.
The pressure valve
Over half a million young people leave for work each year, most into low-skilled jobs despite tertiary qualifications. Their remittances are a quarter of GDP — a lifeline that also removes the pressure to fix the system that sent them away.
Our position. Migration is not the problem, and it is not going to stop. The problem is that nothing comes back except cash. The fix is not to close the door; it is to build things worth returning for, and to make coming back to build high-status instead of an admission of failure. That is brain circulation, and it is a choice Nepal can make.
On the numbers. Figures marked Official are from modelled labour statistics; those marked Estimate are drawn from reporting and analysis and describe the direction and scale of the gap, not a single census figure. We show them so the shape of the problem is undeniable, and we mark which is which rather than imply false precision.
Sources