Higher Education in India has recently been under the spotlight, especially after the release of the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) results for 2024. The NIRF, which assesses institutions over various parameters including research outputs, teaching quality, and infrastructure, has sparked debates about its reliability and transparency, particularly concerning the 'peer perception' criterion used for rankings. State-run institutions and regional governments are questioning the criteria’s fairness, arguing it favors institutions located in metropolitan areas over those situated outside urban centers.
The controversy came to the forefront when several state governments, especially from Kerala and Tamil Nadu, expressed their discontent with the NIRF methodology, claiming it disproportionately benefits established institutions with considerable media coverage and marketing capabilities. Kerala's Higher Education Minister, R. Bindu, emphasized the subjective nature of 'peer perception', arguing the ambiguity surrounding this criterion leads to unscientific evaluations. "It's very subjective without any objective evaluation. Prejudices reflect in the rankings. The criterion is not well-defined, and we will demand the Centre and the NIRF for clearer criteria on the ranking system,” stated Dr. Bindu.
This tension has been particularly evident as funding for higher education institutions from the central government is often linked to these rankings. The Pradhan Mantri Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (PM Usha) directly impacts the allocation of funds based on NIRF rankings, prompting concerns from state officials about equity and fairness. R. Srinivasan, a member of the Tamil Nadu Planning Board and former registrar at Madras University, remarked, "If the system has shaky foundations and if the Centre uses these rankings to distribute funds, it is problematic.”
The recent NIRF rankings highlighted these disparities. For example, the Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Centenary College ranked fourth among colleges nationwide, but it scored only 38.75 out of 100 on 'peer perception', significantly lower than institutions like Hindu College and Miranda House, which scored above 90. Similarly, the historic CMS College, Kerala’s oldest institution, managed to secure 92nd place with just 1.07 marks on 'peer perception', reflecting the agonizing realities faced by many regional universities.
According to NIRF, the peer perception measure involves surveys from employers and academics across sectors and regions, with the intention to gather comprehensive input from its pool of experts. An NIRF official clarified, "Public perception was previously included but was stopped after complaints of system manipulation.” Although 'perception' accounts for merely 10% of the total score, critics argue this still allows for disproportionate influence, especially when state universities lack the advertising savvy of their private counterparts.
Meanwhile, addressing leadership changes within prestigious institutions, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras recently appointed new heads for its research park and incubation cell. Radhakrishna G Pillai from the Civil Engineering department takes over as the Professor-in-Charge of the research park following the retirement of Ashok Jhunjhunwala, who had led the initiative from its inception. Similarly, Mohanasankar S from the Electrical Engineering department has been designated to oversee the incubation cell and rural technology incubator.
This shake-up follows continued efforts to bolster innovation and entrepreneurship within the institute, aiming to align research capabilities directly with industry needs. V. Kamakoti, the director, noted, "These appointments are aimed at enhancing our outreach and effectiveness within both the academic and business communities.”
The dialogue about the NIRF rankings and the governance of higher education institutions feeds directly back to concerns over how education is viewed and valued across India's diverse socioeconomic landscapes. With political pressures mounting and concerns over fairness echoing, many are left wondering what reform might look like and how institutions can strike the balance between peer evaluations and objective measures of educational quality.
Even as India’s higher education ecosystem continues to evolve, the underlying challenge remains clear: how to construct fair, transparent, and inclusive evaluation systems. Critics of the current framework continue to call for thorough assessments of how educational practices facilitate true learning and comprehension, rather than simply marketing prowess. The insights and concerns arising from this NIRF controversy are set not only to redefine institutional strategies but could also catalyze significant policy revisions within India's education sector.
