Prof Raj Shree Dhar
Sri Aurobindo believed that a good education builds a strong foundation in the mind, and that a university can only provide some materials for education. He also believed that the education system should be dismantled and replaced with a National Education system. He thought that the existing education system should be replaced with a new system that would include the inheritance of the past, the gains of the present, and the potential of the future.
Rankings serve as an important tool for gauging an institution’s academic, research, and infrastructural quality. They influence a wide array of factors, from student recruitment to funding, partnerships, and institutional growth. They provide useful observations and benchmarks that help institutions assess their performance, improve standards, and make strategic decisions for long-term development. Institutions that consistently perform well in rankings often enjoy greater prestige, recognition, and financial stability, making rankings an important aspect of their overall success and growth.
Ancient India was home to some of the world’s most renowned centers of learning, where scholars and students from across the globe gathered to study a variety of subjects, from philosophy and mathematics to medicine, astronomy, and law. While the concept of rankings, as we know them today, did not exist in ancient times, several institutions in ancient India were highly regarded for their academic excellence and intellectual contributions. The ancient Indian institutes like Nalanda, Takshashila, and Vikramashila were more than just educational hubs-they were vibrant centers of knowledge that attracted scholars and students from different cultures and regions. These institutions laid the foundations for scientific, philosophical, and intellectual thought not just in India, but across the world. While the exact nature of rankings and institutional competition was different in ancient times, the intellectual legacy of these institutions still shapes the world today.
NEP 2020 introduced a developmental framework that redefines higher education institutions in India into three distinct categories: research universities, teaching universities and autonomous degree-granting colleges. To follow such shift, the Ranking institutes of India have a convincing reason to alter its ranking methodology to align with these NEP-defined categories rather than continuing with an ownership and programme-based classification. Ranking institutions based on their NEP category would allow for a more accurate and meaningful performance assessment, better reflecting their core missions and the roles envisioned by the NEP. This new landscape for higher education institutions under the NEP also re-imagines regulatory bodies, transforming them into professional standard-setting bodies. These bodies will focus on setting and maintaining academic standards rather than the traditional role of strict regulation. Additionally, the NEP advocates for merging multiple regulatory bodies into a single, unified regulator, known as the Higher Education Commission of India, which would streamline governance and oversight, further emphasizing the importance of standards over regulation. This shift calls for a corresponding evolution in ranking methodologies ensuring that assessments are brought into line with the NEP’s vision of a more flexible, mission-driven higher education system.
In India, the NIRF and NAAC have become a significant benchmark for assessing the quality of higher education in India. These rankings help the institutions in providing funding allocations and institutional recognition and influences public perception. These rankings guide funding and institutional selection in programmes like Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) and Institutions of Eminence. The ranking is based on various parameters such as teaching and learning, research, graduation outcomes, outreach, and inclusivity. NEP 2020 calls for institutions to focus not only on academic excellence but also on critical thinking, innovation, and the overall development of students. The NEP also aims to promote multidisciplinary institutions, encouraging HEIs to offer diverse programmes that integrate different fields of study, thereby breaking disciplinary silos and creating a more holistic education system. One of the major reasons behind the setting up of NIRF was to counter the perception of Indian universities in global university rankings, such as the QS, Times Higher Education and Shanghai rankings as these have limitations when it comes to the key parameters of teaching, reach and service in India’s unique local context. The government of India conceived of the NIRF as a ranking with global ambitions.
NEP 2020, however, emphasizes holistic and multidimensional development of students, with a focus on fostering critical thinking, creativity, life skills, and emotional intelligence, which are not given enough weight by the quantitative metrics used by ranking institutions. While NIRF does consider some aspects of student and faculty development, it is still largely tied to traditional academic outputs and infrastructure, which may not fully align with the broader goals of NEP 2020, such as the development of 21st-century skills and lifelong learning. India’s education system in 2047 is likely to be characterized by greater technological integration, personalized learning, global collaboration, and focus on skills and competencies. Education will not be confined to traditional classrooms but will be flexible, accessible, and centered on the holistic development of students.
The NEP advocates for diversity in teaching methods, languages, and content to cater to the needs of all students across the country. Ranking institutions, however, often use a one-size-fits-all approach to rankings and accreditation. This means that institutions catering to specific local or regional needs (such as those focused on regional language instruction or catering to specific community needs) may not receive adequate recognition in these systems. A key aspect of the NEP 2020 is the focus on teacher training, pedagogical reforms, and fostering student-centered learning environments. However, Ranking institutes do not fully account for the quality of teaching or the effectiveness of pedagogical innovations within institutions. These institutes are often critiqued for focusing on short-term, quantifiable indicators, which may not reflect the long-term vision of NEP 2020, such as fostering critical thinking, creativity, interdisciplinary learning, and social responsibility. While rankings reward institutions for outputs like research publications and graduation rates, they may not fully capture the transformational role that education should play in shaping well-rounded citizens and lifelong learners, as outlined by NEP. While NIRF includes faculty qualifications and research output, it does not focus on the quality of the teaching process or how well faculty are trained in modern, student-centered teaching methods that the NEP 2020 stresses upon.
There are different institutions that rank institutions based on particular programmes in institutions that are approved by their respective regulatory bodies like- for universities and colleges, the UGC and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE); for Engineering institutes etc the AICTE; for architecture, the Council of Architecture; for medicine, the Medical Council of India; for pharmacy, the Pharmacy Council of India; for management, the AICTE; for law, the Bar Council of India; for dentistry, the Dental Council of India; and for agriculture, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The NEP emphasizes the need for multidisciplinary education and research universities and the creation of large, integrated universities that break down silos between different fields of study. However, the NIRF’s approach to ranking institutions based on specific categories and ownership inadvertently reinforces these silos.
This structured approach ensures that every kind of institution is evaluated based on its unique role in the broader educational landscape envisioned by the NEP 2020. NEP 2020 sets the stage for a transformative shift in India’s higher education; the Ranking institutions must adapt its ranking methodology to align with that new framework. By moving away from ownership-based classifications and embracing the NEP-defined types, these ranking institutions will encourage the development of multidisciplinary education and research universities and support the restructuring and consolidation of India’s HEIs. This shift in ranking institutions can provide a more locally relevant and meaningful assessment, driving excellence based on institutions’ core functions. As such, the NIRF will ensure that its greater mission of challenging global university rankings and becoming a truly national framework for ranking is achieved.
Since ranking institutes are important tools for assessing the performance of Indian higher education institutions, they should fully capture the transformative, inclusive, and flexible vision outlined in NEP 2020. Both systems could evolve to better reflect the goals of the policy, ensuring that the rankings and accreditation processes go beyond traditional metrics and embrace a more holistic and future-oriented approach to education.
(The author is Dean, Cluster University of Jammu)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
