Recently, the Ministry of Education (MoE) published the ninth edition of the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) that ranks higher education institutions across 13 categories. The parameters include: Teaching, Learning and Resources, Research and Professional Practice, Graduation Outcomes, Outreach and Inclusivity, and Peer Perception.
When the NIRF was first launched in 2015, many educationists believed it would foster healthy competition among institutions and enhance the quality of higher education in the country. However, some had questioned the approach. Any ranking system is subject to biases, and the NIRF is no exception. Since its inception, educationists have identified several biases, including those related to urban-rural divides, resource availability, research output, peer perception, inclusivity and outreach, regional disparities, data reporting, and standardisation.
Despite these concerns, some institutions have consistently appeared in the top 10 lists across all editions. But how significant are their contributions to society? Moreover, to what extent do they adhere to ethical practices in their pursuit of higher rankings? What actions have been taken against those institutions engaging in unethical practices, such as providing inaccurate or fabricated data? Has the ranking system promoted healthy competition and improved the quality of higher education? After nearly nine editions, has the MoE taken any concrete measures to modify the criteria and improve the framework?
Question of weightage
The robustness of the rankings depends on how well the various criteria reflect the actual quality of education and how they are weighted. Rankings are more robust when their weightage aligns with the core values of education. Currently, higher weightage is assigned to the first two parameters: Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR) and Research and Professional Practice (RP), while lower weightage is given to Outreach and Inclusivity (OI).
Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR) and Research and Professional Practice (RP) are undoubtedly crucial aspects of higher education. However, with mandatory accreditations and the growing emphasis on rankings, unhealthy competition has emerged among institutions striving for higher rankings. This has led some to pressure faculty into publishing more research papers, often prioritising quantity over quality. The mantra “publish or perish” has led to more value being placed on documentation than on teaching.
Moreover, the rise of predatory journals and instances of plagiarism have undermined professionalism and ethics in academia. How many research papers genuinely impact society? How many Ph.D. theses are read by academics and found useful? How valuable are funded projects? These questions challenge institutions that prioritise quantity over quality and may expose uncomfortable truths about their practices.
Academic freedom
Academic freedom is considered essential in higher education institutions, as it empowers teachers, scholars, and students to engage in critical inquiry. However, there have been instances where teachers were dismissed for expressing their views on issues such as supporting the Palestinian cause or speaking out against the commercialisation of education. In the context of ranking institutions, it is important to ask how many of these so-called top institutions truly allow their faculty, scholars, and students to enjoy academic freedom? Does the ranking system assess whether faculty and students genuinely experience this freedom? Why is “academic freedom” not a criterion in the ranking process?
Inclusion
In the Indian context, the parameter of “Outreach and Inclusivity” is particularly significant. While the NIRF includes aspects such as the percentage of students from other states or countries, the percentage of women, economically and socially challenged students, and facilities for physically challenged students, it does not address the need for diversity among faculty. According to reports, some top-ranked IITs and IIMs do not have a single faculty member from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Castes, and SCs, STs, and OBCs together make up only 6% of the total faculty at IIMs. Paradoxically, the parameter of “Outreach and Inclusivity” itself falls short of being inclusive.
Global university rankings, such as Times Higher Education (THE) and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), have historically focused on research output, teaching quality, and international reputation. While they consider aspects of inclusivity through metrics like international diversity, they do not comprehensively address social justice, ethics, or integrity. However, the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings for 2024, which celebrates universities contributing to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals including those related to social justice, inclusivity, and ethical practices, reflects a growing awareness of the importance of these values. As the global educational landscape evolves, there is a need to incorporate these principles more explicitly into university evaluations in India too.
It is crucial to assess the relevance, usefulness, and robustness of the NIRF and to modify its criteria to better reflect the needs of society. Being good is as important as being brilliant. Being ethical and socially responsible is as important as being academically excellent or highly reputed. Institutions that achieve top rankings but lack ethics and integrity cannot produce socially conscious, community-oriented citizens. True excellence in education must be paired with a commitment to moral values to genuinely contribute to the betterment of society. Will the ranking system consider this aspect to create a transformative effect on society at large?
The writer is an ELT resource person and education columnist. rayanal@yahoo.co.uk
