Editorial of the Day: Rankings, and the Realities of Higher Education (The Hindu)

Context: The article is discussing the recently released India Rankings for 2023 by the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF). It acknowledges that while the NIRF rankings serve as a benchmark for assessing institutions, there have been criticisms regarding the methodology and parameters chosen. However, it highlights that the rankings shed light on the need for significant improvements in the quality of higher education in India. The rankings indicate that there is a requirement for substantial enhancement in teaching methods, learning resources, research output, professional practices, outreach efforts, inclusivity, and the overall perception of institutions. These findings emphasize the importance of addressing these areas and directing policy attention towards enhancing the quality of higher education in India.

Rankings, and the Realities of Higher Education Background

About the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF):

• It was launched by the Ministry for Human Resource Development (MHRD) [now Ministry of Education (MoE)] in September 2015 to rank higher educational institutions (HEIs) in the country.
• Before NIRF’s launch, HEIs were usually ranked by private entities, especially news magazines.

Reason for its launch:

• The subjectivity in the ranking methodology developed by QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education World University Ranking led India to start its own ranking system for Indian HEIs on the line of Shanghai Rankings.
• The long-term plan of NIRF is to make it an international league table (Currently, NIRF continues to only rank Indian HEIs).
• Participation in NIRF was made compulsory for all government-run educational institutions in 2018.
• Assessment: The framework ranks institutions based on the following five parameters:
  • Teaching, Learning & Resources (30% weightage);
  • Research and Professional Practice (30%);
  • Graduation Outcomes (20%);
  • Outreach and Inclusivity (10%); and
  • Perception (10%)
• Categories of ranking: Best institutions across 11 categories are listed out – overall national ranking, universities, engineering, college, medical, management, pharmacy, law, architecture, dental and research.

Concerns associated with the NIRF

• Overemphasis on bibliometrics: Experts have argued that bibliometric indicators don’t fully capture the intricacies of scientific performance.
  • Bibliometrics refers to the measurable aspects of research, such as the number of papers published, the number of times they are cited, and the impact factors of journals.
• Lack of transparency: While the NIRF does publicly share its methodology, it is criticised for not providing a detailed view of the data collection process and sources.
• Insufficient quality parameters: Critics argue that the indicators used by the NIRF may not be sufficient to capture the overall quality of an institution. Factors such as the skills imparted to students, financial health, and institutional size may also be important considerations in assessing quality.
• Manipulation and competition: Over-reliance on rankings can create a competitive environment where institutions may prioritise meeting ranking criteria over actual excellence.
• One-size-fits-all approach: Critics argue that the NIRF’s ranking approach lacks consideration for the diverse nature of the Indian education system, leading to a one-size-fits-all approach that overlooks the unique contexts and goals of different institutions.

Decoding the Editorial

The article is discussing various issues wrt to the NIRF Ranking.

Issues with the NIRF Ranking:

• Low participation of institutions:
  • The participation rate of institutions in the ranking process is relatively low, with only 12.3% of higher educational institutions submitting applications for ranking.
  • This raises concerns about the lack of information and recognition for the remaining 87.7% of institutions, particularly in a country with a large number of universities and colleges.
  • The lack of representation from rural areas also highlights potential urban bias in the ranking framework.
• Incongruence between quantity and quality:
  • The distribution of top-ranked colleges is heavily skewed towards a few states like Tamil Nadu, Delhi, and Kerala, while states with a high number of colleges like Uttar Pradesh do not have any representation in the top 100.
  • This indicates a need to focus on improving the quality of education across all states.
  • The discrepancy between private and government institutions is also notable, with private institutions securing lower ranks in the overall and university rankings.
• Correlation between faculty strength and rankings:
  • The rankings demonstrate a strong correlation between faculty strength and institutional rankings.
  • Top-ranked universities and colleges tend to have a significantly higher number of faculty members compared to lower-ranked institutions.
  • This suggests that quality education is not solely dependent on infrastructure but also on the presence of qualified faculty members.
  • It also highlights the non-compliance of many engineering institutions with the prescribed faculty-student ratio by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).
• Correlation between faculty strength, quality, and scientific publications:
  • A significant portion of scholarly output in India, approximately 87.71%, comes from the institutions that participated in the NIRF rankings.
    • This means that a small percentage (12.3%) of institutions that took part in the rankings contribute to a large proportion (close to 90%) of the country’s scholarly output.
• In the field of engineering, an even higher percentage (99.98%) of scientific publications are generated by the institutions that participated in the rankings. On the other hand, in the management domain, 50% of the institutions that applied for rankings had zero publications, indicating a lack of research output.

Way Forward

• The article emphasizes the urgent need for quality enhancement in the higher education system, which requires significant financial resources.
  • It highlights that India’s share in global scientific publications is relatively low at 4.81%, while China’s share has increased significantly from 5% in 2000 to 26% in 2018.
  • This growth in China’s scientific output was facilitated by substantial research investments by the Chinese government, including increased numbers of universities, research faculty, and public research funding.
• The article suggests that if rankings are intended to inform evidence-based policy decisions, then there needs to be a significant increase in budgetary allocations for higher education in India.
  • This indicates the importance of investing in research infrastructure, faculty development, and funding opportunities to enhance the quality and quantity of scientific publications in the country.

Beyond the Editorial

Government Initiatives for Improving Higher Education

• National Education Policy (NEP) 2020: It proposes various reforms in India’s higher education including technical education.
  • NEP aims to increase the gross enrollment ratio (GER) in higher education to 50% by 2035.

• The Institute of Eminence (IoE): It is a recognition scheme under University Grants Commission (UGC) that helps empower higher educational institutions. The HRD Ministry of India grants the Institution of Eminence status to multiple universities.
  • Academic institutions that can impart highest quality education, generate cutting edge research, and attract the best and the brightest from across the globe can have multiplier beneficial effects for the country.
• Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA): It is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) that aims at providing strategic funding to eligible state higher educational institutions.
• Education Quality Upgradation and Inclusion Programme (EQUIP): This is a five-year vision plan to improve the quality and accessibility of higher education over the next five years (2019-2024).
  • Double the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education and resolve the geographically and socially skewed access to higher education institutions in India.
  • Position at least 50 Indian institutions among the top-1000 global universities.
• Global Initiative for Academics Network (GIAN): The programme seeks to invite distinguished academicians, entrepreneurs, scientists, experts from premier institutions from across the world, to teach in the higher educational institutions in India.
• All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE): The main objectives of the survey are to identify and capture all the institutions of higher learning in the country; and collect the data from all the higher education institutions on various aspects of higher education.

Sharing is caring!