This is a blog post from
Right on schedule, the topic of science has made the front page in the mainstream consciousness of the Indian media. In the latest Times Higher Education (THE) rankings, the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bengaluru was ranked eighth in the best small universities list . This small, single-digit number is a pleasant departure from the usual news of Indian institutions wallowing in triple-digit positions. Being an alumnus of the IISc, you'd feel like this is a proud moment for the august institution but the fine print suggests something is amiss.
It must be remembered that ranking exercises are largely subjective in nature. For example, THE’s rankings are based on a consolidated weighted score across five indicators — teaching, research, citations, international outlook, and industry income. Institutions provide and sign off their data (and where not provided, estimates are made). Each of the first three categories contribute to 30% of the score; the latter two contribute 7.5% and 2.5% respectively. Nearly one-third of total score (15%+18%) comes from their annual reputation survey , and many important factors may have been overlooked. In spite of such difficulties, let us take these rankings at face value.
The largest “objective” data point is the citation influence. Citations (number of times a particular piece of research work is cited) are often used in academia as an indicator of the influence of a research study. To use an oversimplified analogy, it could be compared to the number of likes/comments/tweets that a video or an article elicits; the logic being that the most seminal pieces of original research are quoted very frequently. However, it must be noted that the converse of this argument does not necessarily suggest a formidability of the research (a highly-cited research paper might have majority of its citations claiming that the study’s methodology was flawed, for instance).
If IISc had a decent overall score last year, why didn't it appear in the corresponding small universities list then? After all, it was the highest ranked Indian institution in 2016 too
In today’s digital age, research work has been indexed thoroughly. But, even though extensive bibliometric data is available, there are many disparities in citations between fields and in the manner in which multiple contributors share it. As a result, even these objective measures have their quirks, and these show up in the rankings as well. Several universities with lower overall rankings feature heavily amongst the top spots of this metric. IISc's own citations score is at 47.3 (up from 42.4 last year). In the overall rankings, IISc has improved its score in most of the metrics, and has climbed from the 251-300 bracket to 201-250 (an improvement of anywhere between 1-99 spots).
What does the ranking mean?
In last year’s best small university rankings , two Indian universities made it to the list (IIT Guwahati and Savitribai Phule Pune University). According to THE’s methodology , a “small” university would have fewer than 5,000 students, and would teach more than four subjects. For what it’s worth, THE notes that the average number of students in its main global rankings is ~25,000. The top 20 in the small university category are spread out over the top 600 (with only 2 in the top 100).
This brings us to the question — if IISc had a decent overall score last year, why didn't it appear in the corresponding small universities list last year? After all, it was the highest ranked Indian institution last year as well. Having been a procrastinating PhD student at one point of time, I can make an educated guess that it is highly unlikely that a record number of PhD students graduated from IISc last year; hence, it must have been a “small” university then also.
The methodology page notes that “Universities are excluded from the World University Rankings if they do not teach undergraduates or if their research output amounted to fewer than 1,000 articles between 2011 and 2015 (and a minimum of 150 a year).”
Curiously, the first students of IISc’s Bachelor of Science (Research) program graduated in 2015. Even if the 2015 cut-off is treated as “not teaching under-graduates”, the “or” condition and the fact that IISc had been awarded an overall ranking last year quell this possibility.
THE notes that the year’s World University Rankings were independently audited by PwC (of the Best Picture Oscar gaffe fame). However, I couldn't find a corresponding web page of last year's rankings being independently audited. Hence, the case of IISc pushing the envelope only this year, and its omission from last year’s rankings is likely to be due to accounting error.
While the Indian government has a considerable interest in Indian universities doing well in the global rankings , many of them suffer on the count of international assimilation. Many Indian professors have thriving collaborations with the top scientists of the world, but admission and recruitment of foreign nationals is largely limited. Unless a sudden drastic upturn is observed, one can expect negligible upward movement in this oft-used ranking criterion.
In the overall scheme of the THE rankings, IISc seems to have improved its scores and its overall position. But, it must be also noted that almost every ranking is largely a subjective exercise, and that changes to the individual weights of the indicators under consideration would probably modify the overall rankings significantly.
The hullaballoo surrounding academic rankings is more to do with it serving as a focal point for admissions. Many a time, parents and guardians of wards have used a high score in these rankings as a determining factor in the choice of college and major. The obsession with rankings alone is an unhealthy one. Greater emphasis and attention needs to be paid on overall improvement, and Indian universities would be better served to develop their own system for frequent introspection and course-correction in their quest for global excellence.
