The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) rating has thrown up some surprises, in all States and Tamil Nadu is no exception.
There has been a surge in the number of private institutions receiving high ranks but public-funded colleges seem to be lagging behind. Although the State has a high gross enrolment ratio, the bonanza in the national ranking was unexpected, remarked a higher education official.
Last year, Anna University, which was ranked among the top 300 Asian institutions by international ranking agencies such as QS and the Times Higher Education, was not featured in the NIRF ranking. Anna University had topped among all universities in the State this year.
ADVERTISEMENT
University Registrar S. Ganesan said, “Last year we did not participate. This year the Ministry of Human Resource Development sent us queries whenever we missed something.”
After participants submit data they are uploaded and can be viewed by all participants. Participants can correct their data and also challenge the data uploaded by fellow institutions. The penalty for fudging data is denial of ranking for three years.
“NIRF is different. We get detailed data from the institutions. For NIRF, the stakeholders are the students and the government. We also look for how we are faring in respect to foreign universities,” said IIT-M Director Bhaskar Ramamurthi, who was involved in framing the ranking system.
ADVERTISEMENT
Although the NIRF has provided overall ranks, some educationists believe that given that in India institutions specialise in just some disciplines, overall ranking may not be an accurate measure of quality.
A surprise that the ranking has thrown up is that institutions that had not fared well in their stated discipline had done well in other parameters, thus boosting their rank significantly.
A deemed university official felt this could be because of the weightage given for admission of students from other States and for inclusivity. Another issue of contention was how public perception was counted.
“Public perception is relative and requires sensitisation. Unless someone really loves an institution they may not participate in the online exercise,” observed S. Vaidhyasubramanian, Dean Planning, SASTRA. According to him, “The scores on student diversity must also be aligned with the institution’s admission policy than a generic metric that ignores provisions for local student community.”
When contacted, Surendra Prasad, National Board of Accreditation (NBA) chairman and NIRF core member said only 2-3% of the ranking was devoted to public perception unlike peer and employer perception. “This is a slightly difficult area and we may not have it in the future. Peer perception comes from peer institutes and NIRF has chosen the employers,” he said.
Social inclusivity
Social inclusivity policy had helped Tamil Nadu in the rankings, he said. The State’s 69% reservation policy had not been factored in when the framework was formed, he added.
Asked if the higher weightage for admission of candidates from other States would not hurt institutions committed to admit students from the local community, he said: “Each ranking has a character of its own. We are also learning and moving with every ranking. We have done it for two years now. Ranking is not a true measure of quality of an institution.”