National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF)

National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) is a methodology adopted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) in order to rank all institutions of higher education in India. The Framework was approved by the MHRD and launched by Minister of Human Resource Development on 29 September 2015.

Key Facts

• NIRF ranks the institutions broadly on five clusters of parameters viz. (1) Teaching, Learning and Resources (2) Research and Professional Practices (3) Graduation Outcomes (4) Outreach and Inclusivity (5) Perception. These clusters have been assigned certain weightage and weightage is a function of type of institution.
• Ranking methods have been worked out for 6 categories of institutions viz. Engineering, Management, Pharmacy, Architecture, Universities and Colleges
• There are separate rankings for different types of institutions depending on their areas of operation.
• The ranking, which will be an annual exercise, was done by an independent and autonomous body National Board of Accreditation (NBA).
• The first ranking was released by MHRD on 4 April 2016.

Questions for Analysis

• What is the importance of such rankings in India?
• What are the grounds of criticism of the same?
• What can be suggested taking in account the criticisms?

What is the importance of such rankings in India?

First in the list is its timing. With the ‘admissions season’ round the corner, students looking to study in reputed institutions will not have much time to make up their minds. They can make their choice of the institution they wish to take admission into on the basis of the ranking of the institute.
Secondly, prior to this initiative, Indian students have had to rely on the Shanghai or the QS World Rankings which do not take into account the peculiarities of our subcontinent. In many countries, this exercise has been outsourced to third parties, so the move by the Indian government is praiseworthy.

What are the grounds of criticism of the same?

The grounds of criticism for the same are as follows:

• There has been no cross-verification of data before announcing the ranking. The data used for evaluation was submitted by the institutions themselves (Self-verification criteria) and the responsibility for accuracy and authenticity of the data lies with the respective institutions.
• The stated intent of the government was to prepare India-centric ranking parameters that were sensitive to metrics such as access to higher education and social inclusion. Interestingly, the weightage given to India-specific parameters is not pronounced.
• The IITs have chosen to participate in the rankings under the “engineering” category. They should have competed under the category of “universities”.
• Institutions devoted to specific disciplines like Institute of Chemical Technology is ranked along with multidisciplinary universities like JNU/BHU.
• Some top institutions could not have figured in the ranking because they did not participate in the process and submit the data for judging them over various parameters.
• Disciplines like literature, commerce and social work appear to have been left out.
• The country is also being well served by many autonomous institutions that have their own expertise and excellence. Have they been taken into consideration is a question mark.

What can be suggested taking in account the criticisms?

The self-verification criteria are advisable to be cross-checked with an independent agency. The methodology needs to be improved. Ways and means should also be found to reassure students about the authenticity of the data. The categories should include the arts and sciences. The rankings should include ‘IPs/ patents by the institute’, ‘student satisfaction’, etc. Outreach and inclusivity are useful data to help students get a feel of the composition and outlook of the university. The NIRF should be transparent about the criteria adopted by it to rank Indian universities.