Ranking pitfalls : On the India Rankings 2025.
NIRF should help improve both quality and equity in higher education.
India Rankings (IR) 2025, based on the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), held few surprises. As in previous years, older public institutions with a history of academic excellence dominated the top spots. Since its inception in 2016, the number of participating institutions has grown significantly, from 3,565 to 14,163, and the scope has expanded from four categories to 17, spanning a wide range of higher education sectors. However, the ranking parameters are still far from perfect. Institutions are evaluated based on five key parameters: teaching, learning, and resources (30%), research and professional practice (30%), graduation outcomes (20%), outreach and inclusivity or OI (10%), and peer perception (10%). Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan is right in his scepticism about the peer perception parameter as this is feedback gathered from subject experts and employers. It can be subjective and prone to influence and prejudice, as it relies more on an institution’s reputation than its actual reputability, often to the disadvantage of suburban or State-run higher education institutions. As it accounts for 10% of the total weight, it can skew rankings. A review is thus necessary.
As with any global ranking, the NIRF has its own set of flaws. While it claims to rely on verifiable metrics and third-party audits of research, it depends heavily on bibliometric data and self-declared inputs from institutions. Of concern is the treatment of the OI parameter. The NIRF booklet on the IR focuses only on outcomes related to regional and gender diversity. It conspicuously omits data on students who are economically and socially disadvantaged and with disabilities, despite these factors each having a 20% weightage within the OI component. The fact that OI is not adequately prioritised is evident: only Jawaharlal Nehru University and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, are among the top 10 institutions with OI scores above 70. This is troubling as access to higher education remains restricted for marginalised communities. The NIRF must expand the scope of OI to include institutional adherence to communal reservation policies in faculty recruitment. Central institutions continue to fall short in filling vacancies for the OBC, SC and ST categories. Such affirmative action is crucial for India’s progress as an egalitarian nation. Also, the IR must become more than just an annual, ritualistic event. Its insights should be used to address deep-rooted issues such as India’s regional imbalances; shortage of faculty with doctoral qualifications outside the top 100 institutions; over 58% of management institutions reporting zero research publications, and the need for legacy institutions to mentor emerging ones. Above all, there must be action against institutions that submit false data. Without course correction, the NIRF risks becoming a mere ranking platform that allows private institutions to develop themselves as brands, doing little to improve the overall quality and equity in higher education.