Table of Contents
NIRF’s ranking of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)- Relevance for UPSC Exam
- GS Paper 2: Governance, Administration and Challenges- Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.
NIRF’s ranking of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in News
- Recently released the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF)’s ranking of higher education institutions (HEIs) has received considerable flak from different sections of academia.
NIRF’s ranking of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)
- About NIRF Ranking: The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) is a framework adopted in 2015 by the Ministry of Education (Erstwhile Ministry of Human Resource Development) to rank institutions of higher education in India.
- Categories for Ranking: NIRF ranks higher education institutions under 11 different categories. Initially, there were only four categories in the first NIRF Ranking 2016. The 11 categories are-
-
- Management
- Engineering
- Universities
- Pharmacy
- Architecture
- Medical
- Dental
- Law
- Colleges
- Research Institutions
- Overall
- Parameters used for NIRF Rankings: Assessment of Higher Educational Institutions are done by the ministry on the following five parameters-
-
- Teaching, Learning, and Resources (TLR)
- Research and Professional Practice (RP)
- Graduation Outcomes (GO)
- Outreach and Inclusivity (OI)
- Peer Perception
Associated Concerns with NIRF India Ranking 2022
- Data Fudging: An analysis of the data submitted by some multi-discipline private universities participating in various disciplines under the NIRF provides evidence of data fudging.
- There seems to be a lack of a rigorous system of verification by the NIRF of the data submitted by HEIs.
- For instance, the faculty-student ratio (FSR) is an important criterion for ranking.
- Evidence suggests that some private multi-discipline universities have claimed the same faculty in more than one discipline.
- Faculty in liberal arts have been claimed as faculty in law too, to claim an improved FSR.
- Lack of Transparency: The NIRF requires the data submitted to it be published by all the participating HEIs on their website so that such data can be scrutinised.
- Some private multi-discipline universities have not granted free access to such data on their website; instead, they require an online form to be filled along with the details of the person seeking access.
- Such non-transparency is antithetical to the ranking exercise.
- There is also discrepancy in the data submitted to the NIRF and the data on the websites of these institutions.
- For instance, the data uploaded on the websites omit details on the number, name, qualification and experience of the faculty.
- Gap in Methodology Employed: There is a gap between the methodology employed for accreditation purposes and for ranking purposes.
- While the National Assessment and Accreditation Council gives due weightage to publications in UGC-Care listed journals, the NIRF uses publication data only from Scopus and Web of Science.
Conclusion
- Severe methodological and structural issues in the NIRF undermine the ranking process. The methodology must be revised in consultation with all the stakeholders.