The present system of NIRF rankings suffers from several limitations; the parameters for ranking have been criticised for being non-inclusive & narrow
Dr Manasvi M Kamat
The MHRD has recently informed that the ‘India Rankings Society’ (IRS) was given the accorded approval in the latter half of this year to rank higher educational institutions (HEIs) in the country.
The basic hypothesis of the ranking of HEIs is that it is a prudent way to meet the standards the government wants to set and rank them in a pecking order. The rankings are relative performance based on parameters that define ‘quality’ in higher education as well as the social goals of the country.
While both rankings and accreditations are valuable tools for gauging the quality of an HEI, these are quite different in their approach. The common criteria for ranking include quantitative statistics to evaluate an institution. Since the criteria used by each ranking agency to compile its list can be drastically different, the order of ranks may also differ. The accreditation, on the other hand, is a process of ‘recognition’ by third-party institutions that are objective and aimed to establish an intricate system of evaluating the quality of an HEI. If an HEI meets all of the rigorous standards required by the accreditation body, it gets that agency’s seal of approval and ‘accreditation’.
The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is the recognised body for accrediting the HEIs in India while the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) is our Indian version of ranking these. The international rankings like the QS and Times Higher Education’s (THE) World University rankings do rank Indian institutes, but the system is not inclusive of local conditions. The NIRF is therefore developed in the context of the Indian education system.
In a written reply, the HRD Minister has informed the Lok Sabha that the AICTE Executive Committee in its 127th meeting held on September 21 this year has accorded approval for the creation of an independent society in the name and style of ‘India Rankings Society (IRS)’. The objective of the IRS is to develop and evolve methodologies and system for ranking the HEIs and based on such methodologies, rank and rate them under various categories, domains and sub-domains.
The NIRF rankings are being used at present in India and were stated since 2015 and the ranking list is published every year by the MHRD around April each year, just before the season of admissions. The last NIRF 2019 ranked our HEIs into nine categories namely University, Engineering, College, Management, Pharmacy, Law, Architecture, Medical and Overall Category to ‘help create an environment of academic excellence’.
The NIRF ranking was put into place to help analyze the situation of HEIs across India based on five broad generic groups of parameters. These are: learning and resources; research and professional practise; graduation outcomes; outreach and inclusivity; and perception. This year (2020) will be the fifth edition of the NIRF and the government has indicated that HEIs’ contribution and participation in government-backed social missions like Unnat Bharat Abhiyan and SWAYAM etc will also count towards overall score and ranking.
The present system of NIRF rankings suffers from a lot of limitations. The parameters for ranking have been criticised for being non-inclusive, narrow and vague. Similarly, the NIRF is criticised for using the same scale for ranking institutions irrespective of geographical or economic differences. The common yardsticks used for comparing HEIs across various streams like engineering, pharmacy, law, management, architecture is devoid from logic. Further, the last NIRF ranking represented less than 10 per cent of UGC-linked universities since there is no compulsion for HEIs for participation in the exercise. Thus, the final list doesn’t in any way reflect the reality.
The NIRF results announced each year also show the suspiciously huge geographical and relative variations between rankings of institutions. Among the 100 best institutions in the NIRF rankings last year, 67 are from just eight states, including Delhi. The results glaringly depict the regional imbalance in terms of the presence of top educational institutions in the country. This wrongly implies that the remaining 23 states and six union territories do not have quality institutions. Similarly, the results of the last four years show a higher degree of variation in the top 100 ranks since apples are compared with oranges. A research institute, for instance, producing and sharing sophisticated research and knowledge cannot be compared with young state university offering programmes at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
The basic purpose of all rankings must not only be to rank the high performers but also to identify the poor performer so that proper support can be extended to them. It is also justifiable from the social justice and equity perspective point of views that institutes which fall at the bottom of the ranking hierarchy deserve to get more funding. If this does not happen poor performers will be devoid of public apathy, financial support, and credibility paving way for erosion. It should be noted that in this race for ranking, the state universities, and aided colleges from the non-metros take the biggest hit.
Although the NIRF rankings suffer from a range of setbacks in the present scenario they are referred heavily by both students and authorities as it is the only system currently available in the Indian context. But given the peculiar problems in the current ranking framework, India badly needs a revamped ranking system that has alternative and more reliable sources of classification of educational institutes.
It is heartening to note that the MHRD has recognised the need to revamp and update the current framework with a new ‘IRS’ and provide for an appropriate scale for the country’s education system. As further details of the new proposals are still awaited, let us keep our fingers crossed.
