^ that sounded like a john kerry argument. valid, but boring. "The education requirement for qualifying to a particular position will motivate people and improve literacy rate in the long run." come to think of it i dont completely agree with that remark. the public office is not the sexiest thing. i dont know of any ambitious young nepali who wants to grow up to run for public office, which is why quite a few elected officials are law school dropouts and failures (not everyone, but quite a few). if it were a high demand job, yes, we would see an improvement as people would be incentivized to study hard. but its not. it's a job that no-one wants. the brightest kid in the village who goes on to get a MA does not want to stay back and represent his municipality. it's the less ambitious kid who gets an SLC pass, and is stickign around the village cos he can't compete in the big cities. in order for your plan to work, you need to bring glamor to public office. so the kid who would have gone on to study medicine instead chooses to become an elected representative of his district instead. i don't see that happening anytime soon. after all, the life of a doctor or an engineer or a successful businessman sounds a lot more appealing to a young ambitious kid than that of a paper-pusher in a bureaucracy. and politics is associated with dirt, not glamor. in short, adding the education restriction would just limit the supply of already few qualified individuals.