For many Nepali families, foreign-affiliated higher education institutions (HEIs) represent aspiration—international exposure, better careers, and global mobility. Yet an increasing number of students are discovering that these promises often collapse midway through their studies. What lies beneath is not merely institutional failure, but a regulatory system that approves paperwork while leaving students dangerously unprotected. Recent cases of organized education fraud compel Nepal to confront a critical question: What should be the minimum, non-negotiable requirements for foreign-affiliated HEIs, what is currently being practiced, and why are students repeatedly scammed?
Mandatory requirements
Foreign affiliation must be regulated as a high-risk, long-term academic contract, not a marketing arrangement. Several safeguards must be explicitly mandated. First, accreditation must apply to each academic program—not just the institution. An institution-level accreditation is insufficient. Every program offered in Nepal must be accredited and approved in the foreign university’s home country. Without program-level accreditation, students risk completing degrees that lack academic validity even if the parent institution exists on paper. Second, explicit approval from the home-country government to affiliate in Nepal must be compulsory. A foreign university must obtain formal permission from its national regulator to operate or affiliate in Nepal.
Internal approvals, MoUs, or letters issued by the university itself cannot replace sovereign regulatory consent. Third, foreign affiliation must be restricted strictly to academic degree programs. Professional, vocational, or skill-based courses—often regulated by labor or training authorities abroad—must not be allowed under higher education affiliation. Blurring vocational training with academic degrees has been one of the most exploited loopholes in education scams. Fourth, the legal validity of the parent university must cover the full study period of every enrolled student. If a student is admitted in 2025 for a four-year degree, the foreign university’s operating license, academic approval, and affiliation agreement must remain valid until at least 2029. If the parent institution’s authorization expires in 2027, no new admissions should be permitted unless the entire program can be completed before expiry. Under no circumstances should affiliation agreements be cancelled, terminated, or allowed to lapse before enrolled students complete their degrees.
Point 5: A loophole
One of the most critical weaknesses in Nepal’s regulatory framework lies in Point 5 of the Foreign Affiliation Directive, 2059. This provision allows the Ministry of Education to approve affiliation even if the foreign institution is not ranked among the world’s top 1,000 universities. While flexibility may have been the intent, this clause has created a dangerous loophole.
In many countries, training centers, vocational institutes, and private education providers legally operate under titles such as “University,” “Academy,” or “Institute”, despite not being recognized as higher education institutions by their national regulators. Without a mandatory requirement for home-country regulatory approval, Point 5 effectively allows branding to replace academic legitimacy. This must change.
Point 5 must never operate independently. Without explicit approval from the official higher education regulatory body of the home country, this provision must not be capable of granting affiliation in Nepal—regardless of institutional naming, marketing, or documentation. Ranking flexibility cannot be allowed to override regulatory recognition. Approval must be based on (a) Formal recognition by the home-country higher education authority (b) Authorization to award academic degrees (c) Permission to deliver transnational education. In absence of these conditions, affiliation must be categorically denied.
A dangerous new pattern
One of the most alarming trends is the promotion of multi-country degree structures without comprehensive approval. Some HEIs in Nepal advertise programs such as: First year in Nepal, Second and third year in the UAE and Final year in the UK/UAE/Nepal (optional, to be chosen by individual students). These “global pathway” models are marketed aggressively but often lack unified regulatory approval. Institutions later claim they have approval for each segment separately—foundation approval in Nepal, next-level approval in the UAE, and final-stage approval in the UK. This practice is fundamentally misleading and legally unacceptable.
For a multi-country academic program to be legitimate: (a) All three governments must approve the complete structure as a single academic package, explicitly mentioning multi-country delivery. (b) Partial, fragmented, or sequential approvals are not sufficient. (c) Students must be guaranteed that credits, progression, visas, and degree recognition are valid across all stages. Without a single, integrated approval from all involved jurisdictions, such programs must be treated as illegal.
Teaching beyond approval
Another systemic failure is the absence of penalty. HEIs frequently conduct classes, advertise pathways, or enroll students beyond the scope of approval granted by MoEST. This must change. Conducting or advertising programs beyond approved levels, structures, or jurisdictions should result in immediate suspension of the program, heavy financial penalties, and cancellation of affiliations of other programs and personal liability for institutional directors. Without strict punishment, regulatory violations remain profitable.
Banning ‘ladder’ qualifications
Equally deceptive is the practice of offering diploma or foundation programs that claim to “lead to” bachelor’s or higher degrees (Diploma Leading to Bachelor’s Degree), without guaranteed academic progression. A diploma does not automatically lead to a bachelor’s degree. Such marketing is inherently misleading. By that logic, one could enroll a child in nursery school and promise a pathway “leading to a PhD.” Courses marketed as “Diploma leading to Bachelor” or similar constructs should be categorically banned unless the progression is formally recognized, academically guaranteed, and regulator-approved in advance.
The prevailing practice
Nepal’s Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST) and the University Grants Commission (UGC) have issued directives, approval mechanisms, and Quality Assurance and Accreditation (QAA) requirements. On paper, the framework exists. In practice, enforcement remains document-based and reactive. Approvals often rely on attested documents rather than direct verification with foreign regulators. There is no public, real-time registry showing approved programs, their duration, or cross-border validity. Multi-country structures are neither clearly regulated nor explicitly prohibited, creating fertile ground for abuse. Regulatory action usually follows media exposure or student protests—after damage has already occurred.
Taken for a ride
Students are scammed because the system assumes they can evaluate risks that regulators have failed to control. Families reasonably believe that if an institution is operating openly, advertising foreign degrees, and issuing offer letters, it must be government-approved. That trust is exploited by institutions and consultancies driven by commissions rather than academic integrity. In reality, students are paying the price for regulatory gaps, weak enforcement, and the absence of accountability.
What needs to happen?
Nepal must move from approval on paper to protection in practice. MoEST must mandate full home country and host country approval for each academic program. It must prohibit vocational and misleading ladder courses and enforce complete multi-country package approvals prior to the start of any academic session. Further, it must penalize any teaching beyond approved scope and must guarantee that no affiliation ends before students graduate.
International education can serve Nepal only when regulation is firm, transparent, and student-centered. Otherwise, foreign affiliation becomes not an opportunity—but a trap. The problem is not the absence of rules. It is the absence of enforcement that places students first.
