Today's Editorial

How robust are institutional rankings for higher education?

Relevance: GS Paper I & II

Why in News?

The ninth National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) was released recently. This editorial presents a critical assessment of the various issues involved in the framework.

NIRF and Its Purpose

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), introduced by the Ministry of Education (MoE) in 2015, is a system designed to rank higher education institutions in India across 13 categories.
The ranking aims to foster healthy competition among institutions, ultimately improving the quality of education in the country.
The framework evaluates institutions based on various parameters, including:

Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR)
Research and Professional Practice (RP)
Graduation Outcomes (GO)
Outreach and Inclusivity (OI)
Peer Perception (PP)

Concerns and Biases identified in NIRF

Urban-Rural Divide: Institutions in urban areas may have better resources and visibility, giving them an edge over rural institutions.
Resource Availability: Well-funded institutions might score higher regardless of the actual quality of education.
Research Output: There might be an overemphasis on quantity over quality in research publications.
Inclusivity and Outreach: There are concerns about whether these aspects are adequately represented in the rankings.
Regional Disparities: Institutions in certain regions may be unfairly disadvantaged.
Data Reporting and Standardization: Inaccuracies or inconsistencies in data reporting can lead to unfair rankings. Some institutions may engage in unethical practices, such as inflating data to secure better rankings. Issues such as data fabrication and unethical competition have been reported, raising doubts about the fairness of the rankings.
Ethical Concerns: While some institutions have consistently ranked in the top 10, questions arise about their true contribution to society and adherence to ethical practices. There is a need to evaluate how these top-ranked institutions genuinely contribute to societal betterment.

Evaluation of NIRF’s Weightage System

The effectiveness of NIRF rankings depends heavily on the weightage assigned to different criteria. Currently, Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR) and Research and Professional Practice (RP) receive higher weightage compared to Outreach and Inclusivity (OI).
Teaching vs. Research: The current weightage may encourage institutions to prioritise research output over quality teaching. This could lead to a "publish or perish" mentality, where the quantity of research is valued over its impact or quality.
Predatory Journals and Plagiarism: The pressure to publish results in a rise of publications in predatory journals, leading to ethical compromises like plagiarism.

Lack of Academic Freedom

Academic freedom is vital for fostering critical inquiry and innovation in education. However, it is not currently a criterion in the NIRF ranking system.
Threats to Academic Freedom: Instances have been reported where faculty members were dismissed for expressing their views, such as supporting the Palestinian cause or speaking out against the commercialisation of education, suggesting that academic freedom may not be fully protected in some top-ranked institutions.

Issue of Inclusion and Diversity in Faculty

The NIRF considers Outreach and Inclusivity (OI) as one of its parameters, 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.
Lack of Faculty Diversity: Reports indicate that some top institutions like 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.
Global Comparisons: International rankings like 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.

Way forward

Need for Reform in the NIRF Criteria: As the NIRF enters its ninth edition, there is a growing consensus that the framework needs to evolve to better reflect the needs of society.

There is a call for the MoE to modify the NIRF criteria to include aspects such as academic freedom, faculty diversity, and ethical practices, which would make the rankings more holistic and transformative.

Incorporating Ethics and Social Responsibility: True excellence in education should include a commitment to ethical practices and social responsibility. Institutions should not only focus on academic achievements but also on producing morally conscious and community-oriented citizens.

Conclusion

The NIRF ranking system, while a significant step towards improving higher education in India, has faced criticism for potential biases and an overemphasis on certain parameters. For the rankings to truly enhance the quality of education, they must evolve to incorporate broader criteria that reflect ethical practices, social responsibility, and inclusivity. Only then can the rankings contribute to the creation of educational institutions that not only excel academically but also uphold the moral values necessary for the betterment of society.