Editorial 1: ​Ranking pitfalls

Context

NIRF should drive enhancements in both the quality and inclusiveness of higher education.

Introduction

The India Rankings (IR) 2025, conducted under the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), reflects the evolving landscape of higher education in India. While older public institutions continue to dominate top positions, the ranking shows remarkable growth in participation and categories. However, ranking parameters such as peer perception and outreach & inclusivity (OI) reveal limitations that can skew results and obscure the true quality of education.

Trends, Growth, and Key Observations in IR 2025

• Dominance of Established Institutions
  • Older public institutions with a long history of academic excellence continued to dominate top positions.
  • Trend consistent with previous years.
• Growth and Expansion of NIRF
  • Participating institutions increased from 3,565 (2016) to 14,163.
  • Categories expanded from 4 to 17, covering a broader spectrum of higher education sectors.
• Ranking Parameters
  • Evaluated on five main parameters:
    • Teaching, Learning & Resources (30%)
    • Research & Professional Practice (30%)
    • Graduation Outcomes (20%)
    • Outreach & Inclusivity (OI) (10%)
    • Peer Perception (10%)
  • Peer perception feedback can be subjective and biased, often favoring reputation over actual performance.
  • Suburban and state-run institutions may be disadvantaged.
  • A review of this parameter is necessary to ensure fair rankings.
• Flaws and Limitations of NIRF
  • Heavy reliance on bibliometric data and self-reported inputs despite third-party audits.
  • OI parameter inadequately measured:
    • Focuses mainly on regional and gender diversity.
    • Omits economically/socially disadvantaged students and students with disabilities, despite their 20% weightage each.
    • Only JNU and AIIMS Delhi scored above 70 in OI among top 10 institutions.
  • Access to higher education remains restricted for marginalized communities.

Recommendations and Need for Reform

• Expanding OI Metrics
  • Include institutional adherence to communal reservation policies in faculty recruitment.
  • Central institutions still underperform in filling OBC, SC, and ST faculty vacancies.
  • Affirmative action is crucial for promoting an egalitarian higher education system.
• Actionable Recommendations for NIRF
  • Go beyond annual rankings and address systemic issues:
    • Regional imbalances in higher education.
    • Shortage of faculty with doctoral qualifications outside top 100 institutions.
    • Over 58% of management institutions report zero research publications.
    • Encourage legacy institutions to mentor emerging ones.
  • Enforce accountability against institutions submitting false or misleading data.
• Overall Concern
  • Without corrective measures, NIRF risks becoming a branding exercise for private institutions rather than a tool to improve quality and equity in Indian higher education.

Conclusion

The NIRF provides valuable insights into India’s higher education ecosystem, but its flaws—including overreliance on self-reported data, underrepresentation of marginalized communities, and skewed peer perception scores—limit its effectiveness. Addressing these issues, expanding OI metrics, and ensuring accountability can transform IR into a tool that not only ranks institutions but also promotes equity, quality, and systemic improvement.