As Indian universities needed to be ranked based on Indian approach, Ministry of Human Resource and Development set up National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF). It outlines a methodology to rank institutions across the country. It is first of its kind that comprehensively assess an institution and ranks higher educational institutions in India.
• Indian approach to ranking: It ranks institutions based on the five broad parameters – Teaching, learning and resources; collaborative practice and professional performance; graduation outcomes; outreach and inclusivity; and perception.Thereparamaters are further elaborated into subcategories.
• Separate ranking for for different types of institutions depending on their areas of operation: Ranking methods are provided for 6 categories of institutions, they are Engineering, Management, Pharmacy, Architecture, Universities and Colleges.
• Verifiable data: Data obtained to measure the performance is such that it is easily available.
• Annually: An independent and autonomous body, National Board of Accreditation (NBA), would do the ranking annually.
• Voluntary: Initially, it will be voluntary for institutions to sign up for the
• India specific ranking: India specific ranking system would reduce the dependence on the international agency ranking which does not take exclusivity and gives ranking.
• Transparency: Verifiable data would help in setting up as transparent ranking system
• Status of institutions: As it included both public and private institutions it provides the actual status of higher educational institutions in the country so that students could make informed choices.
• Improve competitiveness: This will help state as well as institutional for self-check and correcting themselves. Thus promoting excellence.
• It is a step towards bringing the Indian institutes on a global platform.
• No clear specifics about weightage given to India-specific parameters.
• As it is voluntary not all institutions are covered in the ranking system.
• Disciplines like literature, commerce and social work appear to have been left out.
• Broad based institutions as the IITsare listed under the “engineering” category. They should have competed under the category of “universities.
• The first ranking released this year used Self-verification criteria
for the data submitted. Lack of cross-verification of data
affects the authenticity of the data.
• While making the framework, not much effort has into taking into consideration views of state funded and private institution, exercise was mostly done by Central institutions.
• Normalisation of performance index: Normalisation would help as there is huge resource gap between state funded and private institutions.
• Separate scheme: A separate scheme for central, state and private institutions might be better, and private industries would be voluntarily made to compete with the state funded institutions.
• Measures like extensive cross-examination of data,systematic and monitored surveys,inclusion of state representatives in the NIRF team would help obtaining a comprehensive ranking.