Jigisha Ranjit scored an A+ in her SEE and enrolled to study Humanities for 10+2. Normally, these two phrases would be connected with a ‘but’, for such a score usually accompanies words like ‘science’ and ‘management’.

Yet few like Ranjit are adamant enough to defy the conventional path. “I am more interested in understanding society and contributing to it instead of just going after more money,” Ranjit, who wishes to be a journalist, says. 

Students like Ranjit belong to a rare breed whose numbers are declining so rapidly that the extinction of humanities from high schools feels ever more likely. 

But what is causing this slow death? 

Experts suggest that the answer lies in how Nepal defines educational success: an increasingly income-centric approach to education.

According to data obtained from the National Examination Board, 14,473 students appeared for the Grade 12 Sociology examination in 2022/23, alongside 605 for Psychology and 4,403 for Mass Communication. 

Those figures plummeted to 9,004 for Sociology, 202 for Psychology, and 2,469 for Mass Communication in 2025/26. 

Conversely, the number of Grade 12 students appearing for Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Accounting, and Economics increased over the same period. 

Physics candidates rose from 52,370 to 60,939, Biology from 32,147 to 39,125, and Chemistry from 52,355 to 60,923. Accounting and Economics also saw increases, from 174,771 to 185,027 and 167,619 to 169,862, respectively. 

These figures show that the already low student numbers in the former subjects are steadily heading toward their doomsday.

The Eighth Amendment to the Education Act, restructured school education by bringing Grades 11 and 12 within secondary education, which now covers Grades 9 to 12. It also replaced the earlier higher-secondary structure. Although ‘+2’ and ‘stream’ remain widely used in everyday usage and by schools, the newer curriculum allows students to choose subjects across different categories rather than being confined to traditional streams. This article uses ‘+2’ and ‘stream’ where necessary for ease of reference. 

The decrease in student enrollment invites a fall in the number of schools. 586 schools across Nepal offered the Sociology course in 2022/23, and the number dwindled to 398 in 2025/26.

Similarly, the number of schools teaching Psychology fell from 24 in the former year to 16 in the latter. In the case of History, only eight schools offered the subject in 2025/26. Since the decline in schools offering humanities at the +2 level is paralleled by the ever-growing number of science and management students, decoding Nepali society’s obsession with the latter two would be a prerequisite to understanding the humanities’ decline.

The plethora of options that a ‘science’ student encounters for their undergraduate studies is one hook, according to Indira KC, a Sociology teacher and chief academic counsellor at United Academy. “The perception is that a science student can comfortably fit anywhere. But the scope that humanities provides is still unexplored,” she says.

According to Associate Professor Suresh Gautam, head of the Department of Development Education at Kathmandu University School of Education, the growing obsession with these two subjects stems from a changing understanding of education. “People are increasingly reducing education to a mere tool to enhance one’s income,” he says.

Professor Bidhya Nath Koirala holds the same stance. He notes, “People have become very money-oriented, and they see the greatest financial rewards linked with the technical fields.” 

Science and management are viewed as the most suitable avenues for generating attractive income. Conversely, the social sciences and the humanities are considered the least favorable for doing so.

Identifying who people idolise today only reinforces this perspective. Gautam argues, “Those who own a big house, drive an expensive car, have many hotels—they are the role models of today. Nobody wants to become, say, a teacher, for such a lifestyle attracts none,” he notes. 

Gautam stresses that the only aspiration today’s youth carry is to earn more. The collective attention has shifted to replicating the lavish lifestyles—to whatever extent they can—youngsters see on social media.

Failure to exemplify the contributions made by the world and figures of social sciences in the mainstream has also rendered this scenario, Gautam contends. “None of the impact made by social sciences on the sphere of politics, society or economy are highlighted by the media. So, the figures that made the contributions were never taken to be role models by children,” he explains.

Gautam traces the problem to another, more systemic reason: the schooling system, where students are essentially nurtured to compete in this race of acquiring higher income. He says, “Schools are so extremely result- and grade-oriented that it leaves very little time for students to focus on reading, writing and thinking outside of the syllabus.” 

And once even a semblance of good grades starts appearing on students’ mark sheets, they’re marked fit to enroll in either Science or Management. To the point that students hesitate taking up subjects of their choice, fearing that they would be labelled incapable for life. KC says that she has come across many such students.

Schools start seeding the idea early on that better grades equate to better chances of landing jobs in medicine, management, engineering and other technical fields. Anyhow, they must earn a great deal, even if it means moving abroad. Subjects like literature, politics, philosophy, social studies and arts receive little to no scrutiny, for they—as per their branding—fall short of landing a lucrative, or even a secure, career path.

Mukunda Raj Sharma, the principal of Little Angels’ School, acknowledges this trend. “It is true that schools should’ve been able to introduce these subjects, as optional ones at least. But neither do they fall under the interest of most parents, students, nor the market,” he said.

Market forces, or at least what is perceived as such, also decide which subjects students are most exposed to. Those that produce the most effective workforce in the market are easily highlighted, to the extent that a huge chunk of students remain unaware of the courses that exist outside that convention. This persisting marginalisation of subjects that ‘sell’ less renders a circular relationship between declining student enrollment and the growing number of schools discontinuing the subject. 

One such case is that of Prashna Bista, a fresh SEE graduate. Bista had spent her entire school life at St Mary’s and wished to continue her last two years of study in the humanities at the same school. But to her dismay, the school removed the humanities stream this year. She now would either have to study the subject of her choice elsewhere, or make peace with some other programme.

When approached, Merina Shakya Bajracharya, the +2 in-charge at St Mary’s School, said that the school had to remove the programme because of declining student numbers. “Students had been minimal since the very beginning; never crossed 20. Last year, we had just six in the stream.” 

This appears innocuous on an individual level, but Bista’s case is not isolated. This relationship, where the lowering interest of students in humanities studies and the decreasing number of schools offering the subject only complement each other. 

St Mary’s School is yet another addition (or rather, a subtraction) to the list of schools that have fallen prey to this trend.

It is amid this chaotic competition that students like Ranjit appear. Their defiance of societal validation signals much more than personal interest: there are students who want to study social sciences and contribute to society in meaningful ways. 

Gautam notes that if this trend continues, with more and more students, regardless of their interests, being crammed into halls to rote-learn chemical reactions and mathematical equations, we will be producing robots in the next few years. 

However, it raises the question: aren’t we already?