1. One of the objectives of having education, in my mind, is to make us good human beings and citizens who can stand on our own and extend our contribution to others-- for greater good.

2. Educational institutions are not the end in themselves, they are just the means. Some may turn in the long run the heralders of civilization, polity, civic...and others end up with contributing some. All the academic and educational institutions are making their efforts.  It is the history and the time that can judge who has done what.

3. We should not evaluate the institutions only on the basis of what we call the apparent "face values". Means, Harvard's contribution on science, technology, humanity, law and medicine should be weighed against what it does to support the CIA through some of its institutions, such as "school of government" --for instance, or by extending researches on "public diplomacy (??)"  against some countries the "American institution" calls the "rogue states". The point I am trying to make here is: Lets not turn blind in evaluating.

4. Let me turn to the point of discussion in this thread: St Xaviers may be a good institute in Nepal but as far as the "issue of prestige" in society simply because of being a Xavier guy/girl is more a matter of social relation which is based on what our "Maoist comrades" say--a feudal social-economic construction ( I am not a Maoist but I believe Marx in this line of argument). Yes, we are still in feudal state: when it is pretty impossible for the kids of commoners to go to Xavier school or any Bungalow school (you know the vicious circle!). People tend to respect to those who graduate from those 'high class" schools where there is "virtually" no presence of the "real" commoner. But the question here is: should they indeed respect them ["Xavarians" as some people used this phrase]? Do they deserve respect vs others not?

I want to compare this false "respect" of Xavarians with the so called respect a landlord's son used to get during Panchayat time while visiting his village once in a year in Dashain.  He used to be "pulakit" of having been respected by those folks and "felt proud of being a Thulaghare" (just like Xavarians!) He did not know that the respect he got was a shallow and false.

The point I am trying to make is: Xavarians can be proud of being Xavarians just like the landlord' son is proud of being a Thulaghare. But what's the use of that? The "respect" should deserve its worth if there is and it is again the question that needs to be judged in the context of history, contribution for the wider good of the society and mankind and more than that- in the anneal of all these components. Otherwise, the result of such vein iconoclastic narcissism will always have a faulty perspective: of seeing others as "village typo" vs themselves as "civilized".