This story is from April 10, 2017

Topsy-turvy college rankings leave students and profs baffled

Contrary institution rankings by bodies connected with the central government, one directly , has left millions of students puzzled.
Topsy-turvy college rankings leave students and profs baffled
Image used for representation.
MUMBAI: Contrary institution rankings by bodies connected with the central government, one directly , has left millions of students puzzled. Sample this: Gauhati University as per the ranking chart of one rating body (NIRF) is several places higher than institutions that had higher ratings by another body (NAAC). Then, Bharathiar University , which arguably few have heard of, is ranked higher than the esteemed Tata Institute of Social Sciences in the NIRF's chart.
In fact, rankings of the top 50 universities by the NIRF (National Institutional Ranking Framework) and the NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council) are widely divergent.
While NIRF is a methodology adopted by the Union ministry of human resource development, NAAC is an autonomous body funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The two use different sets of parameters for their ranking exercises.
Across academia, the NIRF rankings have drawn the accu sation of not reflecting reality.With institute participation being voluntary and data self-reporting in nature, followed by no moderation, experts are questioning the authenticity of the inputs. A section of faculty members at Mumbai University (ranked by NIRF in the 101150 bracket [India]) questioned the veracity of the system.They not only looked at NAAC scores (quite high for MU), but also at the latest QS World University rankings, where MU is at 145 (Asia) and Pune University at 176. Professors thus wonder how a ranking of just Indian universities saw MU slip so low. “The vast difference in the two rankings, one an established international system and the other a newly designed allIndia ranking, seem simply too drastic. Should there not be broad conformity in ranking outcomes?“ said Neeraj Hatekar, head, Mumbai School of Economics and Public Policy .
A former NAAC director said he didn't understand the NIRF's results. “What does one say? Obviously the central government has more wisdom,“ he mocked. In a throwback to 2009, many compared this “embarrassing“ situation to the face-off between NAAC and the Tandan committee, which blacklisted 44 deemed universities for failing to meet a range of quality parameters.
NIT Delhi chairman and former IIT Kanpur director Sanjay Dhande said there are fundamental problems with institute ranks and scores. “One, if you want to draw up rankings, you must ensure that there are common criteria.Two ministry departments don't speak to each other, little realizing who the ranks are for--prospective students and their parents who need to decide college A over B. Also, put up all data that institutes submit online so that students know what is available at each college.“
Ranking lists need to be cohesive, he said. “What is the point of putting all the IITs on top of engineering colleges? It does not make sense to compare a Changaram Gangaramaffiliated college to an IIT. If a student wants to join an engineering college in his hometown, there ought to be a rank list. Make clusters of colleges and then rank them. Each cluster ought to have its own set of quality parameters.“
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA