The latest National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) rankings underscore the need for an alignment with the provisions of the National Education Policy (NEP) of 2020.
One reason is the NEP’s pledge to consolidate and restructure higher education institutions (HEIs) in India. This emphasises the need to restructure HEIs according to their core function rather than the current classification, based on ownership (public or private).
The NEP also aims to promote multidisciplinary institutions, encouraging HEIs to offer diverse programmes that integrate different fields of study, thereby breaking disciplinary silos and creating a more holistic education system.
How the NIRF works
Over the years, the NIRF has become a significant benchmark for assessing the quality of higher education in India, in addition to the National Assessment and Accreditation Council.
The NIRF is the benchmark for providing funding allocations and institutional recognition and influences public perception. NIRF rankings guide funding and institutional selection in programmes like Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan and Institutions of Eminence.
They influence Joint Entrance Examination (Advanced) and the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test seat allocations, and support initiatives like Study in India and the Global Initiative of Academic Networks.
They also shape the quality mandate policy of India’s University Grants Commission (UGC), embedding it in India’s higher education system.
One of the major reasons behind the setting up of NIRF was to counter the perception of Indian universities in global university rankings, such as the QS, Times Higher Education and Shanghai rankings. These have limitations when it comes to the key parameters of teaching, reach and service in India’s unique local context. The government of India conceived of the NIRF as a ranking with both a local avour and global ambitions.
The NIRF has categorised and ranked institutions based on particular programmes in institutions that are approved by their respective regulatory bodies: for universities and colleges, the UGC and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE); for engineering, the AICTE; for architecture, the Council of Architecture; for medicine, the Medical Council of India; for pharmacy, the Pharmacy Council of India; for management, the AICTE; for law, the Bar Council of India; for dentistry, the Dental Council of India; and for agriculture, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
The NIRF’s methodology is based on the local context of the higher education landscape in India. Its parameters include teaching, learning and resources, and outreach and inclusivity. It focuses on institutions’ financial resources, infrastructure, inclusivity, research and professional practice, and graduation outcomes.
While these core parameters are almost the same across all categories of institutions, the weightage assigned to these parameters varies depending on the specific category of the institution participating in the ranking.
For instance, when it comes to the universities, for medicine, pharmacy, management, law, dentistry and agriculture categories, the weightage is evenly distributed between teaching, learning and resources, and research and professional practice, each contributing 30%, with graduation outcomes at 20%, and both outreach and inclusivity and perception at 10% each.
Colleges, however, place a greater emphasis on teaching, learning and resources, which are scored at 40%, while research and professional practice are given 15%.
Using this categorisation may go against the principles outlined in the NEP 2020. The NEP emphasises the need for multidisciplinary education and research universities and the creation of large, integrated universities that break down silos between different fields of study. However, the NIRF’s approach to ranking institutions based on specific categories and ownership inadvertently reinforces these silos.
Such categorisation could potentially discourage the development of multidisciplinary education and research universities, which are central to the NEP’s vision for the future of higher education in India.
NEP 2020: A transformative framework
The NEP 2020 introduces a transformative framework that redefines higher education institutions in India into three distinct categories: research universities, teaching universities and autonomous degree-granting colleges. Given this shift, the NIRF has a compelling reason to alter its ranking methodology to align with these NEP-defined categories rather than continuing with an ownership and programme-based classification.
Ranking institutions based on their NEP category would allow for a more accurate and meaningful performance assessment, better reflecting their core missions and the roles envisioned by the NEP.
This new landscape for higher education institutions under the NEP also reimagines regulatory bodies, transforming them into professional standard-setting bodies. These bodies will focus on setting and maintaining academic standards rather than the traditional role of strict regulation.
Additionally, the NEP advocates for merging multiple regulatory bodies into a single, unified regulator, known as the Higher Education Commission of India, which would streamline governance and oversight, further emphasising the importance of standards over regulation.
This shift calls for a corresponding evolution in ranking methodologies like the NIRF, ensuring that assessments are brought into line with the NEP’s vision of a more flexible, mission-driven higher education system.
Alignment with NEP 2020
The NIRF should revisit its current weightages and consider a proposed methodological alignment with the NEP. This approach tailors evaluation criteria to the distinct roles of institutions. For research universities, a 60% weighting on research and professional practice reflects their key role, with teaching, learning and resources at 20% and graduation outcomes, and outreach and inclusivity at 10% each.
Teaching universities would focus on teaching, learning and resources at 45% weighting and graduation outcomes at 25%, with 15% each for research and outreach. Autonomous degree-granting colleges would emphasise teaching (45%) and graduation outcomes (30%), with outreach at 20% and research at 5%. This refined methodology would better align rankings with each institution’s primary mission under the NEP.
The weighting assigned to different types of institutions is aligned with the core missions outlined in the NEP 2020 and Draft National Education Policy (DNEP) 2019. The NEP 2020 emphasises the importance of research in advancing India’s global knowledge contribution, which justifies the 60% weightage for research universities.
The policy advocates for institutions to become world-class research and innovation centres, contributing significantly to tackling global challenges. This aligns with the NEP’s vision for these institutions to prioritise high-impact research while maintaining a supportive learning environment that enables cutting-edge research.
For teaching universities and autonomous degree-granting colleges, the NEP 2020 and DNEP stress the need for high-quality, accessible education that prepares students for the workforce and further studies. The NEP encourages a flexible curriculum and innovative teaching methods, reflected in the significant weighting given to teaching quality (45% for both types of institution).
Graduation outcomes are also prioritised, as these institutions are expected to produce graduates who are ready to contribute effectively to society and the economy.
The NEP’s focus on inclusivity and outreach is mirrored in the weightings given to these parameters, ensuring that education i accessible to diverse populations and thus fulfilling the policy’s goals of equity and excellence across all institution types.
Unique roles
This structured approach ensures that every kind of institution is evaluated based on its unique role in the broader educational landscape envisioned by the NEP 2020.
The NEP 2020 sets the stage for a transformative shift in India’s higher education; NIRF must adapt its ranking methodology to align with that new framework. By moving away from ownership-based classifications and embracing the NEP-defined types, the NIRF will encourage the development of multidisciplinary education and research universities and support the restructuring and consolidation of India’s HEIs.
This shift in NIRF can provide a more locally relevant and meaningful assessment, driving excellence based on institutions’ core functions. As such, the NIRF will ensure that its greater mission of challenging global university rankings and becoming a truly national framework for ranking is achieved./universityworldnews.com
More Stories
UN summit outcome shows higher education has work to do
Historic government shift holds promise of education reform
New EU-funded programme to support threatened academics