In
addition to trade, higher education is becoming a major sphere of divergence in
capacities and capabilities between China and India. The latest Times Higher
Education rankings for Asian universities has 21 universities from the Chinese
mainland among top 100 universities in Asia.
This is an increase from 18 last year.
The tally looks more impressive by including universities from Hong Kong and
Macau, both of which, as special administrative regions (SARs), are now parts
of China. Hong Kong has six universities in the list, while Macau has one.
The
University of Tokyo, National University of Singapore and the University of
Hong Kong are the top three Asian universities. Peking University and Tsinghua
University from China are right behind at four and five. China has overtaken
Japan in terms of having the largest number of universities in the top 100.
While mainland China now has 21 universities in the elite list, Japan has 19.
The
Indian performance has been worse than the previous year. From ten in the top
100 last year, Indian universities are down to nine. The Indian Institute of
Science (IISc) Bangalore is the highest-ranked, at 37. Others in the list
include Panjab University (38), IIT Roorkee (55), IIT Bombay (57), IIT Delhi
(65), IIT Kharagpur (69), IIT Madras (78), Aligarh Muslim University (90) and
Jawaharlal Nehru University (96).
Other
than the reducing number, the concern is over most of the Indian universities
slipping in ranks. Apart from the IISc Bangalore and IIT Bombay—the two new
entrants—and IIT Roorkee, whose rank has improved from 59 to 55, all other
Indian universities in the top 100 list show lower ranks this year. The
sharpest drops are for IIT Kharagpur (45 to 69) and Aligarh Muslim University
(80 to 90). Some reputed universities like IIT Kanpur, IIT Guwahati and
Jadavpur University are not in the list any more.
Why are
Indian universities faring increasingly worse in global and regional rankings
than the Chinese?
The Times
University Rankings are based on performances across a group of parameters.
These include teaching, international outlook, industry income, research and
citations. Among these, Indian universities perform particularly poorly in
international outlook and research.
International
outlook measures the university’s global collaborations and partnerships along
with the proportions of foreign faculty and foreign students. IIT Delhi has an
international outlook score of 14.8, while IIT Kharagpur has 14.2. The Nanjing
University of China, one of the middle-level Chinese universities among those
in the top 100, has an international outlook score of 50.2. The Wuhan
University, another similarly placed university from China, has a score of
33.1.
Research
is becoming a critical handicap for Indian universities in global and regional
rankings. Phil Baty, Editor of the Times Higher Education Rankings, attributed
the performance of Chinese universities to the commitment to higher education
by a country prepared to invest heavily in research and development. With
respect to India, the observation was on the critical importance of investing
in research and strengthening links with other institutions.
The
difference in research scores between the Indian and Chinese universities is
worth noting. The IISc Bangalore is ahead of the rest of the Indian
Universities with a score of 39.5. The remaining Indian universities are
bunched within 24.0-10.0. The two top Chinese universities—Peking and
Tsinghua—have scores of 61.9 and 68.3, while Fudan and Shanghai Jiaotong
Universities are at 34.4 and 37.9. Most of the middle level Chinese
Universities, like Nanjing and Wuhan Universities mentioned earlier, have
research scores on par with the Indian IITs in the top 100.
The
citation scores reflect interesting insights. Citation measures the frequency
of reference to a particular research or academic work by other researchers
revealing the traction gained by the former in ongoing research and among
peers. Despite a low research score of 10.4, Panjab University has a remarkably
high citation score of 84.4, which has helped it to rise to 38. Citation scores
of Indian universities are better than research scores pointing to fairly wide
circulation of the research by faculty in global academic circles.
The low
research scores of top Indian universities compared with the Chinese is a
result of the lower volume of research coming out from the former. The good
quality of this limited research, as reflected by citations, is not good enough
for higher rankings.
The
Chinese experience points to greater collaboration with international
universities and making domestic ones attractive for foreign students and
faculty as necessary conditions for global academic recognition. Such
collaborations and attractiveness not only increase revenues and the scope for
greater cutting-edge research, but also better branding.
The
enormous effort made by Chinese universities in augmenting research is equally
critical. A lot of commercially applied scientific research in China is now
being done in universities in active collaboration with industry. Research in
Chinese universities has also been encouraged by incentives offered to faculty.
By building capacities and institutionalising incentives for quality research,
China has been able to significantly expand quality research output.
It is a
pity that such capacities and incentives are much less in scale and scope even
in the best Indian universities.
Till
these improve and till Indian universities revamp their international outlooks,
they would stay well behind China in rankings.
Source
| Financial Express | 17 June 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment