What’s missing in the Indian ranking for varsities?
The
all-India ranking for higher education institutions in the country released by
the human resource development (HRD) ministry last week is being seen as a big
step in improving the quality of education imparted by Indian universities. It
also aims to make these universities globally competitive. While 100
institutions each were ranked under the university and engineering categories,
50 each were ranked in management (research and teaching) and pharmacy
(research and teaching) categories.
Prominent names missing from the list
One
of the surprise elements was that some prominent institutions in different
disciplines were missing in the National Institutional Ranking Framework
(NIRF). These include Delhi Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research,
National Law School of India University (Bengaluru), Faculty of Management
Studies (Delhi), National Institute of Design (Ahmedabad), Mudra Institute of
Communication (Ahmedabad), Indian Institute of Mass Communication
(Delhi/Dhenkanal) and School of Planning and Architecture (Delhi and others).
The
rankings were arrived at after detailed analysis and validation of the data
submitted by more than 3,600 higher educational institutions in the country
classified in six categories. These rankings followed an Indian approach, where
an academic institute was assessed on parameters, including teaching-learning;
research; collaborative practice and professional performance; graduate
outcomes; placements; outreach and inclusive action and peer group perception.
Each of these was subdivided into nearly 20 sub criteria to comprehensively
assess an institution.
Citing
reasons for prominent names not making the cut, Ashok Thakur, former secretary
to the government of India, department of higher education, HRD ministry, says,
“This is the first year of NIRF and it is possible that many institutions,
including some very good ones could not participate or could not upload
complete information. For example, in the category of universities, though we
have more than 740 in the country, only about 250 of them participated.”
Professor
Surendra Prasad, who is part of the core committee involved in devising the
ranking framework, says, “NIRF has ranked only those institutions, which
registered with it for ranking. Those who registered, were allowed to submit
the data required for the rankings. Those who did not, were out of our loop. It
was entirely their choice.”
Karthick
Sridhar, vice chairman, Indian Centre for Academic Rankings and Excellence Pvt
Ltd, however, says, NIRF could have been more proactive in reaching out to
institutions. “Conducting workshops at regional levels, addressing queries,
setting up a dedicated phone and email assistance service and engaging more
closely with stakeholders so as to educate them on the requirements could have
been done in a better way. Many technical universities felt handicapped as they
were not aware if they were to participate as a university or an engineering
college or both. The data requirements set forth by NIRF was way too demanding
such as data of the last three years. There was no proper channel of
communication between institutions and NIRF. All phone calls made to a
particular number at National Board of Accreditation were either unanswered or
queries redirected to UGC or AICTE. No one agency took complete charge and
addressed the situation. In the process, many well-known institutions ignored
the rankings and hence many not-so-well-known institutions got their chance
under the sun.”
Institutions
cite their own reasons for not being able to make a mark on the NIRF. “I think
institutions like FMS have been clubbed with their parent university as FMS is
not a standalone institute. It is a constituent component of University of
Delhi. So the university has been ranked and not individual faculties and
departments,” says ML Singla, dean, Faculty of Management Studies.
Categories not exhaustive
Another
aspect where there is scope for improvement in the NIRF is the number of
categories under which institutions have been ranked. This number isn’t
exhaustive.
“In
the years to come, the number of categories will have to be increased in order
to cater to various types of institutions as one can only compare apples with
apples. For example, apart from subject-wise categories, even within the
universities, the newer ones want separate parameters for ranking, which, to
some extent, is understandable as their challenges are different from the
established ones. As far as the overall parameters are concerned, these seem to
be very relevant and adequate. In our country, even an engineering or a dental
collage can don the mantle of a university to circumvent regulation. The
national rankings can highlight such discrepancies and help separate the wheat
from the chaff,” says Thakur. Data from the Category B institutions in all
domains continued to exhibit major inconsistencies despite NIRF’s best efforts
to remove them. It was decided, therefore, that no rankings be announced for
Category B institutions this year. Similarly, due to non-representative
participation in the domains of architecture and general degree colleges, no
rankings were announced this year.
Data verification a big challenge
The
general nature of the NIRF rankings also brings into question the verification
of data. Prasad says, “This was one of the biggest challenges for us
operationally. Data-based objective rankings can be only as good as the quality
of the underlying data. Enormous effort was spent on making sure that data are
scrutinised carefully to remove as many inconsistencies as we could spot. We
used some automation (statistical tools), but more importantly a large number
of senior volunteers (without a conflict of interest) for this purpose.
Wherever available, we used data from independent sources. Wherever data
collected from institutions was used, they went through very strict scrutiny.
Wherever we did not have confidence, we desisted from doing a ranking. That is
another reason, we did not rank all categories.”
Data
vetting is the key in ranking institutions further. “A random sampling method
must be in process and any data that looks out of the ordinary must be
reexamined. Technology must be employed at the highest level and government
must seek support of agencies that have expertise in this area. Physical
verification of infrastructure is out of question in a country that is so large
and an education system that is so complex,” adds Sridhar.
Source | Hindustan
Times | 20 April 2016
Regards
Pralhad Jadhav
Senior Manager @ Library
Khaitan & Co
Upcoming Event | National Conference on
Future Librarianship: Innovation for Excellence (NCFL 2016) during April 22-23,
2016.
Note | If anybody use these post for
forwarding in any social media coverage or covering in the Newsletter please
give due credit to those who are taking efforts for the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment