NIRF Rankings: Comparing Apples and Oranges?

 

Courtesy: Pixabay

University and college rankings have always been a controversial topic in the higher education space. There is definitely a strong case for collecting data relating to performance, teaching, research, graduation outcomes and holding institutions accountable to certain standards of excellence. But the quest to ace the rankings game often pits institutions against one another in an unhealthy bidding war to increase enrolments. Often the data collected does not reflect the reality on the ground and students are left feeling deceived about their academic choices.
 
The seventh edition of India’s Ministry of Education-driven National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) rankings 2022 has thrown up the same questions. With the usual suspects – IITs, IISc Bangalore, IIMs bagging top spots with scores similar to last year, there seem to be few surprises. Comparing smaller, better-funded institutes with larger, diverse state universities may not be the best way to judge performance. “Putting JNU and IISc together is comparing apples with oranges,” Jawaharlal Nehru University Vice Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi remarked after JNU lost the number one position to IISc.
 
The NIRF rankings are prepared based on parameters such as teaching, learning, resource quality, research, professional practice, graduation outcomes, outreach, inclusivity and perception. However, given the sheer numbers of HEIs, creating one solid framework to assess and rank institutes will have weak links to begin with. According to the All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE), there are 1043 universities, 39931 colleges and 10725 independent institutions. 
 
Union Minister Education, Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Dharmendra Pradhan said that India’s “HEIs are working towards making our education ecosystem more vibrant and making our youth future ready. A robust and objective framework for assessment, accreditation and ranking will play a major role in enhancing quality in the higher education ecosystem.”
 
This is not the first time higher education institutes are being ranked in India. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC – for colleges and universities) and the National Board of Accreditation (NBA – for technical and professional institutions) was the first government initiative to rank institutions in 1994. Publications such as India Today and The Week also publish their own ranking of colleges and universities. But the NIRF has taken things to a different level.
 
It makes sense for public higher education institutes to participate in this exercise to improve their chances of better funding. Plus the NIRF is being touted as transparent and a good way for institutes to showcase themselves and drive enrolments. However, there needs to be a connect between the data collected via the questionnaire and on-ground realities for the exercise to yield positive outcomes. Otherwise it will remain a hollow attempt without any real value delivered to either institutions or students.

However, there needs to be a link between the data collected via the questionnaire and on-ground realities for it to accurately reveal the performance and increase student satisfaction. Otherwise it will remain a hollow attempt without any real value delivered to either institutions or students.
 
Note: The list of top 100 ranking colleges and Universities in Engineering, Management, Medical, Dental, Law and Architecture fields is available on the official NIRF website.

Dual degrees with world's top 500 varsities

In a move to regulate the country's higher education sector,  the University Grants Commission has approved new regulations governing foreign university partnerships, barring entry to all but the top 500 globally-ranked universities. In order to be eligible to offer joint degrees or other twinning programmes, foreign universities must be listed among the top 500 in the Times Higher Education or Shanghai Jiaotong University world rankings, while Indian universities must have received the highest grade from the National Assessmentand Accreditation Council or the National Board of Accreditation. Universities with existing partnerships will be allowed six months to comply with the new regulations, or face penalties.

While the government’s move to regulate partnerships by allowing access to elite institutions should be lauded, there are many non-elite institutions worldwide that offer a diverse range of high-quality programmes. The new regulations would deprive Indian students from accessing those programmes.

UK losing out on Indian students due to immigration laws: Baroness Blackstone

The British government’s immigration control drive has led to the country missing out on students from India.

According to Labour's Baroness Blackstone, the country risked being in a "very unfortunate position" when it came to attracting lucrative overseas students. Her concerns were echoed by several peers at question time in the House of Lords.

However, Home Office minister Lord Henley said latest UCAS figures showed a 13% increase in university applications from students from outside the European Union.

Lady Blackstone said: "Some bona fide institutions - universities - have lost as many as 20% of their overseas students, particularly from India. The restrictions on employment when graduating will put us in a very unfortunate position compared to our main competitors the United States and Australia, which have much more generous arrangements for students who wish to work for a temporary period when they graduate."

BARONESS TESSA BLACKSTONE

Labour Viscount Hanworth, a professor at Leicester University, said it was "inappropriate" to treat students along with other immigrants.

He told peers: "The measures designed to combat bogus institutions are also having a severe effect on reputable institutions in the higher education sector. Under normal circumstances, without the impediments created by the Government, their numbers would be expected to follow a steeply upward trend which would be highly profitable for the UK."

Lord Henley told peers it was right to "clamp down on bogus institutions" that were being used "merely as a vehicle to get round immigration rules".

He added: "It might be that there are some particular institutions that have lost out but we have seen proportionate increases elsewhere."

He acknowledged there had been a fall in applicants from the Indian sub-continent, but added: "There have been areas where there have been significant rises - particularly Australasia where there has been an increase of some 20% and Hong Kong 37%."