Rrecently, the Ministry of Education (MoE) published the ninth edition of the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) which ranks educational institutions in more than 13 categories. These parameters include: Teaching, Learning and Resources, Research and Professional Practice, Graduation Outcomes, Outreach and Inclusivity, and Peer Perception.
When NIRF was first launched in 2015, many educationists believed that it would foster healthy competition among institutions and improve the quality of higher education in the country. However, some have questioned the approach. Any ranking system is subject to bias, and NIRF is no exception. Since its inception, educators have identified several biases, including those related to the urban-rural divide, resource availability, research output, peer perceptions, inclusiveness and outreach, regional disparities, data reporting, and standardization.
Despite these concerns, several institutions have consistently appeared in the top 10 lists in all editions. But how important is the contribution to society? Also, to what extent do they adhere to ethical practices in their pursuit of higher ranks? What actions have been taken against institutions that engage 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 almost nine editions, has the MoE taken any concrete steps to revise the criteria and improve the framework?
Question weight
The strength of the ranking depends on various criteria reflecting the actual quality of education and how it is weighted. Rankings are more robust when weighting is aligned with the core values ​​of education. Currently, higher weights are assigned to the first two parameters: Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR) and Research and Professional Practice (RP), while lower weights are assigned to Outreach and Inclusivity (OI).
Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR) and Research and Professional Practice (RP) have always been important aspects of higher education. However, with mandatory accreditation and increasing emphasis on rankings, unhealthy competition has emerged among institutions seeking higher rankings. This has resulted in some faculty pushing to publish more research papers, often prioritizing quantity over quality. The mantra of “publish or perish” results in more value being placed on documentation than teaching.
In addition, the rise of predatory journals and incidents of plagiarism have undermined professionalism and ethics in academia. How many research papers actually affect society? How many Ph.D. thesis read by academics and found useful? How are funded projects valued? These questions challenge institutions that prioritize quantity over quality and can reveal the unpleasant reality of these practices.
academic freedom
Academic freedom is considered important in higher education institutions, as it empowers teachers, scholars, and students to engage in critical inquiry. However, there have been instances where teachers have been fired for expressing opinions on issues such as supporting the Palestinian cause or speaking out against the commercialization of education. In the context of ranked institutions, it is important to ask how many of these so-called top institutions really allow faculty, scholars, and students to enjoy academic freedom? Does the ranking system assess whether faculty and students actually experience this freedom? Why is “academic freedom” not a criterion in the ranking process?
Inclusion
In the Indian context, the parameters of “Reach and Inclusiveness” are particularly important. While the NIRF includes aspects such as the percentage of students from other countries or countries, the percentage of women, students with economic and social problems, and facilities for physically challenged students, it does not address the need for diversity among the faculty. According to reports, some of the top 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 “Outreach and Inclusivity” parameter itself is not included.
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 that contribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including those related to social justice, inclusiveness, and ethical practices, reflect a growing awareness of the importance of these values. As the global education landscape evolves, there is a need to integrate these principles more clearly into the evaluation of universities in India as well.
It is critical to assess the relevance, usefulness, and robustness of the NIRF and modify the criteria to better reflect community needs. Being good is as important as being brilliant. Being ethical and socially responsible is as important as being a good or very famous academic. Institutions that get the highest ratings but lack ethics and integrity cannot produce socially conscious and community-oriented citizens. True excellence in education must be associated with a commitment to moral values ​​that actually contribute to the betterment of society. Will the ranking system consider this aspect to create a transformative effect on the general public?
The author is an ELT speaker and education columnist. rayanal@yahoo.co.uk
