Rankings that make no sense

GS paper 2

Syllabus: Issues related to the development of the social sector related to education, NEP, National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) etc

Source: The Hindu

Context:

• The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF)’s ranking of higher education institutions (HEIs), released in July, has received considerable flak.

 Directions: Just go through it once. Not so important

HEIs are ranked overall, university-wise, college-wise and also under disciplines such as law, medical, pharmacy, management, architecture, and engineering.

Parameters of ranking:

Issues with the Data:

• Private institutions placed above NLUs: The NIRF places some private multi-discipline institutions higher than many prestigious national law universities (NLUs) and law departments.
  • Generally, students who cannot secure a seat in NLUs are admitted to private institutions.
• These institutions are not the first choice: NIRF ranking shows that a private law university scored 100% in perception.
  • Considering this score, it should have been the most preferred place for students.
  • But the Common Law Admission Test admission choices show different picture-this institution figures below 10 NLUs as a preferred place to study.
• Lack of rigorous system: An analysis of the data submitted by some multi-discipline private universities participating in various disciplines under the NIRF provides evidence of data fudging.
• Faculty-student ratio:
  • Evidence suggests that some private multi-discipline universities have claimed the same faculty in more than one discipline.
• Funding in research: Research funding for research projects and consultancy is an essential parameter for ranking.
  • Data show that research grants and consultancy charges received in other disciplines appear to have been claimed as those in law.
• No transparency: The NIRF requires the data submitted to it to be published by all the participating HEIs on their website so that such data can be scrutinised.
  • Some private multi-discipline universities have not granted free access to such data on their website; instead, they require an online form to be filled along with the details of the person seeking access.
• Discrepancy in data:
  • For instance, the data uploaded on the websites omit details on the number, name, qualification and experience of the faculty.
• Same parameters to all institutions: The NIRF applies almost the same parameters to all the institutions across varied disciplines in research and professional practice.
• Publication data only from Scopus and web of science: While the National Assessment and Accreditation Council gives due weightage to publications in UGC-Care listed journals, the NIRF uses publication data only from Scopus and Web of Science.

Conclusion:

• Revised methodology: Severe methodological and structural issues in the NIRF undermine the ranking process.
  • The methodology must be revised in consultation with all the stakeholders.

Insta Links:

Union Education Minister Releases India Rankings 2022 of higher educational institutes

Mains Link:

Q. National Education Policy 2020 is in line with the Sustainable Development Goals-4 (2030). It intended to restructure and re-orient the education system in India. Critically examine the statement(UPSC 2020)

Prelims Link