What's the difference? Hard to answer. But here's one way to tackle it. This is from my experience and observations. If I, let's say as a manager, am looking to hire someone [in Nepal] for a company to do reliably routine work over a period of time (such as compliance work, accounting, writing development reports, and other such necessary tasks of corporate bureaucracy), I probably would NOT hire an STX grad. In all likelihood, that hiring would be a mistake; and the STX grad hired for such purposes will probably be miserable soon. This would be a lose-lose situation for all. If, however, I, let's say, again, as a manager, am looking to hire someone Nepali in Nepal to help my company in areas of, well, product innovation, customer relationship, finding new markets and new customer bases, coming up with new ideas that the company can bet on, then, I would go out of my way to at least interview STX grads. In all likelihood, the chances of a 'fit' will be higher in this second case. That's because, on balance, my sense is that STX grads' comparative strengths are in creativity and innovation, areas that require one to deal with uncertainties, and ambiguities, being bold and there's a big chance that one might fail big or flop mightily. Now, don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying that ONLY these people are creative and iinovative and the rest are jhoor and khattam. I am NOT saying that. I am talking perceived about relative strengths,and NOT absolute strengths. So: Assuming you are a hiring manager staring at piles of smart resumes from strangers that look and sound and feel alike, to save time, you are better off 'sterotyping' STX grads in this manner . . . and there's a big chance that you are likely to be correct. Again, just my observations. Please feel free to disagree. oohi ashu