NIRF a skewed framework for ranking diverse institutions Premium

The need for ranking higher educational institutions is mainly to bridge the information gap for prospective students about quality and performance of HEIs.

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) by the Ministry of Education, Government of India aims at ranking Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) in the country every year. It is conceived as a credible source of information about HEIs in the country for the student community and society. It is considered credible because it has the seal of the Government of India and is perceived as a source to remove the information asymmetry between students and institutions in which they seek admissions.

The number of participating institutions in NIRF 2020 was 3,771, almost doubling to 6,517 in NIRF 2024, which is evidence of its increasing popularity. Private institutions, banking on this framework and its credibility, use the NIRF ranks assigned to them as proof of the quality of education in their institutions and use that liberally if not as the sole marketing tool.

Apart from the opaque nature of the ranking framework, the dramatic variations in the ranking given to some of the well-established government institutions every year raise questions about the main purpose of this exercise. Criticism abounds regarding the validity of the criteria used in the framework. A key criticism is that some of the criteria are loaded against state government-owned institutions whose mandates are set by the respective governments.

The need for ranking higher educational institutions is mainly to bridge the information gap for prospective students about quality and performance of HEIs. We try to understand whether the NIRF bridges this information gap or extends it, highlight some of the pitfalls in the criteria used, and provide possible alternatives for revamping it to enhance the robustness of the framework.

Any ranking system works as a good information tool only if it compares institutions on an equal footing. It creates more confusion if the relative performance of a wide array of institutions with different institutional, governance and operational setups are compared under a broader umbrella as universities.

India has different higher education institutions, such as centrally funded institutions, centrally funded technical institutions, central universities, state universities, private universities, and deemed universities. All these institutions are governed by different acts and institutional setups, but the criteria used to assess their relative performance remain the same. Pooling all these institutions on the same platter for comparison is unfair for the following reasons.

Many private universities are predominantly medical or engineering colleges that gained the status of a university. On the other hand, many government universities are holistic institutions that impart education in arts, humanities, social sciences, and sciences. The educational focus also differs as private institutions concentrate more on the employability of their students while government institutions emphasize knowledge creation and research orientation.