Assessing the National Institutional Ranking Framework

What is the issue?

• The National Institutional Ranking Framework’s (NIRF) rankings have become the big game in higher education.
• In this context, here is an assessment if the rankings are really working to fulfil the purpose or not.

What is the NIRF?

• The NIRF was approved by the MHRD (Ministry of Human Resource Development) and launched in 2015.
• The framework outlines a methodology to rank institutions across the country.
• The ranking framework evaluates institutions on five parameters:
  1. Teaching, Learning & Resources
  2. Research & Professional Practice (RP)
  3. Graduation Outcomes
  4. Outreach & Inclusivity (OI)
  5. Perception (PR)
• The number of participating higher educational institutions (HEI) has risen sharply.
• It has increased from 233 universities and 803 colleges in 2017 to 294 and 1659, respectively, in 2020.
• [There are about 1,000 universities and 40,000 colleges in India.]

What is a noteworthy trend?

• As seen globally, there is a predominance of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) in the top ranks.
• In the ‘Overall’ category, the score ranges from 42 to 85.
• But there are only 13 institutions with a score above 60.
• Moreover, IITs and the IISc make eight of these thirteen.
• In the ‘University’ category, the scores of top 100 range from 40 to 84.
• But an overwhelming 65 universities have a score below 50.
• Regional inequality, too, is glaring, and 42 of the top 100 universities are from 3 states: Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka.
• Similarly, 81 colleges in the top 100 are from Tamil Nadu, Delhi and Kerala.
• Worryingly, directing resources to the top rankers would only widen the gulf.

How rational and fair are the rankings?  

• Rankings attempt to introduce competition between institutions operating in quasi-market environments.
• It is laudable that the government is generating a credible benchmark through the NIRF.
• It is also noteworthy that it is mostly based on objective indicators.
• The PR parameter, which is widely criticised in rankings literature as ‘reputation’, is given only a small weight of 10%.
• However, there are unintended consequences of measurement.
• The view that anything that can be measured and rewarded will be gamed cannot be denied totally.
• ‘Teaching to the test’ is one way in which institutions are distorted, attempting to achieve something in letter, ignoring the spirit.

How does the teaching parameter work on ground?

• There are differences between types of institutions in terms of their functions and objectives too.
• But the parameters and the assigned weights can distort the perception of agents.
• For example, the core function of colleges is to produce graduates with a strong base in their subjects.
• Hence, the NIRF assigns a higher weight for teaching in colleges.
• Still, colleges persuade teachers, who are inclined to teaching, to increasingly do research and publish for which they are ill-equipped.
• A 16-hour teaching load and the task of conducting all the programmes to score on various ranking parameters fall on teachers.
• Over and above this lies the maintenance of an MIS (Management information system).
• Faced by these constraints, teachers resort to low-quality research, and the mushrooming of predatory journals in India is the living proof for this.
• In this process, colleges end up compromising on something that is difficult to measure - teaching.
• According to education researchers, one major factor that helps students graduate is ‘student engagement’.
• An important aspect of this engagement is the quality of contact with faculty.
• In fact, it is this aspect that enriches the career of a teacher too.
• This is severely affected in colleges due to the above said burden on teachers.
• Students will definitely benefit by studying in institutions where teachers are happy and their job satisfaction level is high.

What are the changes needed?

• It is certainly encouraging to see HEIs in India responding to the rankings framework.
• Given this response, the policymakers should innovate and modify the metrics suitably.
• Primarily, the metrics should include feedback from teachers.
• Secondly, the rankings on the basis of different parameters should be published.
• Although some data is available on the website, official publication of such rankings will help students make more informed decisions.
• Another issue is that the use of PhD as a measure of quality of faculty is fraught with serious drawbacks, for the quality of PhD varies a lot.
• A better indicator, at least for non-university categories, would be UGC-CSIR-NET.
• The NIRF should also increase the number of ranked institutions gradually as institutions are improving their scores.
• Notably, the score of 100th ranked college is 50 in 2020 compared to 35 in 2017.

What is the way forward?

• Essentially, it is important not to get carried away by rankings.
• It should be ensured that rankings inform decisions and never drive decisions.
• The real need is heterogeneous institutions with varied missions, programmes and approaches.

Source: Financial Express