By Narayanan Ramaswamy & Manigandan Ganesan
The release of India Rankings/National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) is an eagerly awaited day in the calendar of higher education institutions. A cross-section of stakeholders – including higher education leaders, faculty, students, alumni, and employers – track the performance of institutions across multiple ranking categories and parameters, which is a testament to the growing significance of the NIRF in the Indian higher education ecosystem.
Nine years since it was launched in 2016, the NIRF has come a long way in terms of participating institutions and categories in which these institutions are ranked – over 6,500 unique institutions participated across 16 categories in the 2024 edition, which is a 17% increase from 2023 (5,543 institutions) and about 86% increase since the first edition in 2016 (3,500 institutions).
There are several positives and learnings to take away from these rankings.
Over the years, the NIRF rankings have brought a greater focus towards outcomes, culture of maintaining data, and an increasingly higher transparency in reporting by higher education institutions. This year, the ranking framework tracks adoption of multiple entry/exits, Indian knowledge system, and teaching in regional languages, which are key provisions in the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP). This is an indication of the growing emphasis that the government provides on the salient aspects of the NEP and encouragement for its adoption by Indian higher education institutions. Interestingly, many top-ranked institutes have adopted these NEP provisions, cutting across regions and categories.
While we do see a continuity in erstwhile top performers continuing to occupy top spots across categories, private universities are making strong progress in specific categories.
In the ‘University’ category, of the top-20 universities, nine are private deemed or state private universities. This is a significant jump from 3-4 private universities that would feature in the top-20 ranking about five years ago. These top-ranked private universities have very high student enrolment, averaging 28,000 students, compared to an average of 11,000 students in public universities. Operating at such scale allows these private institutes to generate sufficient funds necessary to invest in quality enhancement initiatives such as recruiting quality faculty, maintaining healthy faculty-student ratio, and investing in research activities, all of which are critical to ranking excellence.
Strong performance in research-related indicators is crucial to overall ranking excellence. Centrally Funded Technical Institutes, IIMs and Central Universities consistently rank high mainly due to their strong research output. Top-ranked private universities are also upping their game in research. As a case in point, amongst top-100 institutes ranked in the ‘Overall’ category, private deemed universities’ share in total publications and citations stands at 23% and 22%, respectively. This is only behind IITs, which account for 24% of the total publications and 25% of the total citations received by top-100 institutes in the ‘Overall’ category. Although private universities are operating at a lower research productivity level than Central Universities, their transformation from predominantly teaching-only institutes to teaching institutes with a strong research focus is truly underway. It is quite commendable to see the rise of Indian private educators in catering to the quantitative and qualitative needs of the growing demand from students. This provides an alternate to the much-famed model of state-funded universities in the West, relevant to the many developing nations, where there is increasing demand for higher education.
An area where the NIRF is perhaps unable to reflect reality is with affiliated engineering colleges. These colleges had been contributing significantly to industry and nation-building, but given their scale, restrictions around diversifying student intake, and emphasis on teaching, they are increasingly finding it difficult to compete with IITs, NITs, state and private universities in the ‘Engineering’ category. Only five affiliated colleges feature on the top-100 in ‘Engineering’ category. Perhaps a separate category or a sub-category for engineering colleges could be introduced in future editions to better recognise the achievements of these institutions and encourage them to become more holistic.
While it is encouraging to see changes in the framework such as removal of self-citations under ‘research outcomes’, it is important to strengthen data verification measures to preserve the sanctity of these rankings. It is also important for institutions to remember that rankings should not overshadow their broader goals and mission.
In addition, while it is on the uptick, these 6,500 unique institutions are less than 12% of the total higher education institutions in the country. We need to make efforts to restructure, consolidate, or elevate the remaining institutions so they can also compete in this ranking exercise.
Overall, nine years since its launch, the NIRF has had a positive effect on the Indian higher education ecosystem. Scores of top-ranked institutions on an absolute scale have been increasing, indicating that higher benchmarks are being set, and this promotes healthy competition amongst higher education institutions. It is also heartening to see the ranking framework constantly evolve and expand over the years, without losing its objectivity. While the positive impact of the NIRF on Indian higher education is undeniable, it’s important to remember that rankings are a means to an end, not the end itself.
Narayanan Ramaswamy is national leader, and Manigandan Ganesan is director, Education and Skill Development, KPMG in India.
Views are personal