The National Institutions Ranking Framework (NIRF) by the Ministry of Human Resource Development will open a Pandora’s box (“ >IIT-M, JNU stand first in govt. ranking ”, April 5). 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. The Central and State universities have been clubbed together, so there are bound to be questions on the parameters adopted (“Tamil Nadu editions, “ >State varsities fare poorly in rankings ”, April 5). The country is also being well served by many autonomous institutions that have their own expertise and excellence. Have they been taken into consideration? Disciplines like literature, commerce and social work appear to have been left out. Another point is whether the assessment by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council carries weight now. Since the evaluation has been based on data received from the institutions (“ >Institutions ranked on self-verification criteria ”, April 5), it is advisable to cross-check this with an independent agency.
Nicholas Francis,
Madurai
Prior to this, 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. However, the methodology needs to be improve. Ways and means should also be found to reassure students about the authenticity of the data. Third, the categories should include the arts and sciences. Fourth, 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.
Saishankar Swaminathan,
Chennai
“Graduation outcomes” is one of the evaluation metrics. Many on both “the left” and “the right” passionately oppose an outcome-based approach to education, although their reasons are different. A focus on results, on what students actually learn and how well they learn it, enables taxpayers to hold educators accountable for results. But this apparent good idea has led to considerable conflict, a major reason for this being the point that the Centre/States turned over the task of defining outcomes to the educational officials most threatened by the process. Educators have proceeded to promote rather vague outcomes, often reflecting politically correct positions, instead of knowledge, skills, and cognitive academic outcomes. Establishing high and uniform academic standards, with a system of accountability, and encouraging greater diversity and types of instruction available through expanded choice programmes are some solutions.
K.M.K. Murthy,
Kochi
It is surprising that JNU, “officially” ranked first among the top educational institutions of the country, does not find a place among the ‘top 200 universities in the world’ or the ‘top 100 universities in Asia’ — Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World Asian Universities Ranking. IIT Bombay and IIT Madras are ranked 39 and 40, respectively, in Asia. The Indian Institute of Science is at 73 and Delhi University at 76. The NIRF should be transparent about the criteria adopted by it to rank Indian universities. Does the fact that both JNU and the University of Hyderabad were “recently embroiled in controversies” influence or contribute to their getting top ranks?
C.V. Venugopalan,
Palakkad
