The ranking is all about the institution’s agility to manage data proactively through proper documentation for assessment. | Photo Credit: Getty Images / iStockphoto
Recently the National Institute Ranking Framework (NIRF) publishes results in various categories including Overall, Universities, State Public Universities, Open Universities, Skills Universities, Colleges, Research Institutions, Innovation Institutions, Engineering, Management, Pharmacy, Architecture and Planning, Law, Medical, Dental, Agricultural and Allied Sectors. On a positive note, the ranking framework has enabled colleges to benchmark themselves using the framework and build capacity to meet these demands.
The idea of including the state’s public universities as a separate category is an inclusive approach that brought Anna University and Bharathiar University from Tamil Nadu into the limelight by placing first and eighth respectively. It is implemented on the basis of central universities that can access relatively higher funding sources than state universities. However, there is still room to refine and refine the framework to make it more inclusive and equitable.
First, it has been consistently concluded that only Delhi-based institutions occupy the top five to six positions, followed by colleges from other states. If one looks carefully at the numerical strength of this institution, many host around 1500 to 4000 students. Also, Delhi-based institutions mainly focus on undergraduate education and post-graduate courses are usually conducted by Delhi University. On the other hand, ranked institutions in South India generally have research as their culture due to their postgraduate education. The question of comparing different institutions ordering on the same platform is not fair because the efforts to organize and manage the data will not be the same.
Justice and fairness
Second, although “reach and inclusiveness” are part of the parameters, the equity performance of academic institutions is not considered as part of the NIRF metrics to measure the practice of “justice” and “justice” through distributive equity that calls for different treatment for disadvantaged institutions to practice SDG 4. Therefore, colleges that perform very well with the availability of socio-economic status (SES) and demographic constrictions are not able to scale up in the ranking framework. Institutions ranked for their exclusive cognitive excellence and meritocratic philosophy for admission are valued more through existing frameworks than inclusive institutions that admit students from diverse learning styles. Institutions with socio-economic advantages, demographics, historical heritage, exclusive identities, family networks, social support systems, personal funds, material wealth, and many other intangibles that work together to raise prospects must be distinguished from those that do not. when evaluating performance under various rubrics.
Third, the assessment of the ‘teaching and learning’ process gives importance to the infrastructure according to the framework rather than the competence of human resources, thus requiring the building of perceptions controlled by the institution. But this leads to marketing manipulation by these institutions. Thus, if it is only in the NIRF ranking, the students end up in a college with a low quality of education but a better infrastructure with the best data capture or simulation system.
USP of the institution
Fourth, each institution is known for its intangible non-cognitive properties as a unique selling proposition that will add value to its culture. Academic success, personality development and leadership are created through ‘social learning’ that is integrated as part of ‘campus life’ through non-credit activities. Although prescribing metrics for this is beyond the scope of this article, it can be seen that a longitudinal qualitative assessment to capture the institution’s USP through a qualitative assessment will achieve a comprehensive understanding. Some performance indicators that are representative of social learning can be civic responsibility, political dexterity, network ability and social intelligence.
Finally, it is clear that the NIRF ranking is all about an institution’s agility to proactively manage data through proper documentation for assessment. The question of whether academic data and facts match is a question that needs to be discussed, since NIRF does not include physical verification.
(Views expressed are personal)
The author is Principal and Secretary, Madras Christian College, Chennai
Published – 05 October 2024 16:00 IST
Paul Wilson process
