English For Engineers: Digital Assignment 6

DIGITAL ASSIGNMENT 6
English for engineers
REPORT WRITING
TOPIC – NIRF RANKING
The National Institutional Ranking Framework is a methodology adopted by

the Ministry of Human Resource Development(MHRD), Government of India,
to rank institutions of higher education in India. The Framework was approved
by the MHRD and launched by Minister of Human Resource Development on
29 September 2015. There are separate rankings for different types of
institutions depending on their areas of operation like universities and
colleges, engineering institutions, management institutions, pharmacy
institutions and architecture institutions. The Framework uses several
parameters for ranking purposes like resources, research, and stakeholder
perception. These parameters have been grouped into five clusters and these
clusters were assigned certain weightages. The weightages depend on the type
of institution
1.NIRF will first identify the relevant data needed to suitably measure the
performance score under-each sub-category. Emphasis has been laid on
identifying data that is easy to generate and easy to verify, if needed, in the
overall interest of transparency.
2. A suitable metric is then worked out, based on this data, which computes a
score under each sub-category. The sub-category scores are then added to
obtain scores for each individual category. The overall score is computed based
on the weights allotted to each category. The overall score can take a
maximum value of 100.
3. The institutions can then be rank-ordered based on their scores.
Higher educations and education as such are reviled in India. While there are
many ills to the system, it might be an impossible task to bring a dramatic
change. Ranking is a good way to encourage institutes of higher learning to
meet the standards the government wants to set. Each of the five parameter
defined by the government are actually goals to be met by the institutes. These
parameters define the higher education, as well as social goals of India. The
weightage given are 30 per cent for teaching learning, 30 per cent for
resources, research and professional practice, 20 per cent for graduation and
outcomes, 10 per cent for outreach and inclusivity, and 10 per cent for
perception. The weight differs for colleges.
The other significant purpose that the ranking will serve is to help the
government identify and fund the top 10 public and 10 private universities to
make them world-class institutes. According to the Budget announcement of
2016, these universities will work towards being counted among the top
universities of the world, armed with funding from the government – as of
now, the arms cache could be up to Rs 100 billion to be spent over 10 years.
1. In the list is its timing. With the ‘admissions season’ round the corner,
students looking to study in reputed institutions will not have much time to
make up their minds.They can make their choice of the institution they wish to
take admission into on the basis of the ranking of the institute.
2. Prior to this initiative, Indian students have had to rely on the Shanghai or
the QS World Rankings which do not take into account the peculiarities of our
subcontinent.
3. In many countries, this exercise has been outsourced to third parties, so

the move by the Indian government is praiseworthy
Criteria and Data analysis
Teaching, Learning & Resources

These parameters are related to the core activities of any place of learning.
These lay emphasis on measuring numbers and quality of faculty, library and
lab resources and general facilities for development of young persons. These
are organized into the following sub-parameters:
 Faculty-Student Ratio with Emphasis on Permanent Faculty (FSR).

 Combined Metric for Faculty with Ph.D and Experience (FQE).
 Metric for Library and Laboratory Facilities (LL).
 Metric for Sports and Extra-Curricular Facilities, Activities (SEC).
Research, Professional Practice & Collaborative Performance
Excellence in teaching and learning is closely associated with the scholarship of
the faculty and students. Equally, faculty members are expected to make their
knowledge and expertise available to benefit the society and industry. These
parameters, therefore, attempt to measure the quantity and quality of
research output as seen through international data bases, IPR generation and
interface with industry and fellow professionals. These are organized as
follows:
 Combined Metric for Publications (PU).

 Combined Metric for Citations (CI).
 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).
Graduation Outcomes
This parameter forms the ultimate test of the effectiveness of the core
teaching/learning activity, and measures the student graduation rate and their
success in finding appropriate placement in industry and Government or taking
up higher studies. These are organized as follows:
 Combined Performance in Public and UniversityExaminations (PUE).

 Combined Performance in Public Examinations.
Outreach
The Ranking framework lays special emphasis on representation of women and
socially challenged persons in student and/or faculty populations, and also on
outreach activities of the institution. These are detailed below:
 Outreach Footprint (Continuing Education, Service) (CES).

 Percent Students from other States/Countries -Region Diversity (RD).
 Percentage of Women Students and Faculty (WS)
 Percentage of Economically and Socially Disadvantaged Students (ESDS).
 Facilities for Differently Abled Persons (DAP).
Perception
stakeholders. This will be accomplished through Stakeholder Surveys.
 Process for Peer Rating in Category (PR).

 Application The ranking methodology gives a significant importance to the
perception of the institution by its to Seat Ratio (SR).
The methodology: Placing value on integrity:
Institutions, universities and colleges are supposed to register and upload

information according to the guidelines issued by the NIFR. They also have to
upload the information submitted to NIRF on their own site for a period of
three years. As a step towards encouraging transparency, the NIFR is
empowered to do random and surprise audits on the data submitted by
institutes. If the submitted data are inconsistent with findings, the institute
could be barred from participating in the ranking survey for the next two years.
While the ranking depends heavily on self-declaration, asking institutes to

publish data on their own site is a simple way of ensuring transparency and
integrity of information.
Research published only in renowned international journals like Scopous, Web

of Science, Indian Science Index is given weight in the ranking. It, therefore
takes away the burden of ascertaining the value of research by a government
body. If these high-ranking journals accept a paper, it meets a certain
internationally accepted standard, making the job simpler for NIRF.
“The rankings, with all its teething problems, is a welcome move to encourage
a culture of research and subsequently innovation that we sorely lack,” says
Sujatha Kshirsagar, co-founder and CEO, Drstikona Consultancy and PMS Pvt
Ltd, a start-up with bridging the divide between corporate needs and academia
as one of its aims. Drstikona encourages corporate houses to spend their CSR
budgets on meaningful projects like research in academic institutes. With HP
Incubator in BHU as an upcoming project and two other Indian clients signed
up, it is positioning itself as a conduit to research in academic institutes.
Kshirsagar believes a mindset of research with an aim to publish in the
renowned peer-reviewed journals will lead to a culture of innovation over a
period of time.
The first steps are always faltering, flawed even, but NIFR is open to change
and is willing to make changes in the evaluation criteria. Some institutes have
move up and some have slipped many places, but as the government moves
towards encouraging participation, the place at which an institute stands is
likely to flip as well, in some cases, dramatically.
Indian colleges do not foster a research mindset, with a 30 per cent weight on
papers being published in international journals, institutes will begin to
encourage it. Research is the first step towards innovation. Innovation will
eventually encourage an entrepreneur's mindset. “A large part of jobs of the
future will have to be generated, therefore innovation is key,” adds Kshirsagar,
herself an alumni of IIM Bangalore.
NIRF score is a reflection of where the institution is standing vis-a-vis other

institutions in the similar category. Since this ranking is done by using several
parameters which further has been assigned different weightage depending
upon type of institution which means this ranking contains complete
information about any institution within its score.
Based on different parameters these rankings lay emphasis on :
1. The ranking methodology gives a significant importance to the perception of

the institution.
2. The Ranking framework lays special emphasis on representation of women.
3. It forms the ultimate test of the effectiveness of the core teaching/learning.
4. Excellence in teaching and learning is closely associated with the scholarship.
5. The core activities of any place of learning.
1.Many universities are proudly advertising their NIRF-2018 ranks these days.
In fact, the ranks are deceptive. The actual NIRF scores out of 100 tell the real
story of Indian higher education.
All the 5 different ranking lists released this year under the categories of-
Overall, University, Engineering, Pharmacy, and Colleges, only 9 institutions
have scored more than 75 marks out of 100 – IISc, The 5 old IITs (Chennai,
Mumbai, Kharagpur, Delhi and Kanpur), and 3 old IIMs (Ahmedabad,
Bengaluru, and Kolkata)
2. The most popularly believed Indian stars, except IISc and JNCASR, are not
much better than some others when it comes to their research publications
per faculty.
3. Collectively looking at the top 100 engineering institutions, the fractions of

the PG (including integrated masters) and the PhD students in India are very
poor. This situation at the remaining thousands of institutions is likely to be far
worse.
The total number of engineering students (all levels) at top 100 engineering
institutions is 4.8 lakh. This is perhaps, only around 8-10% of the total
engineering student population of India. The overall situation in most of these
so-called top 100 engineering institutes itself is far from being rosy and most of
these are very poor in many parameters. The Big concern here is that the
remaining around 90-92% engineering students are getting an extremely poor
educational experience.
Further, out of these 4.8 lakh students in the top 100 institutions, about 77.5%
are UG, 17.6% are PG and integrated PG and only 6% are PhD students. The
student distribution in the remaining thousands of colleges is almost
completely skewed towards UG.
4. There are huge differences within the so called group of top 100 engineering
institutions. Fund availability is the major reason for this difference.
Unlike the international rankings, the NIRF Top 100 engineering institutions, is
not a guarantee for high quality educational experience for the students.
There are huge differences in various parameters among these institutions.Let
me just compare a few critical parameters here in the 3 categories
The following are some of the recommendations of the Core Committee:[3]
 The metrics for ranking of engineering institutions should be based on the

parameters agreed upon by the Core Committee.
 The parameters have been organized into five broad heads or groups and
each group has been divided into suitable sub-groups. Each broad head has
an overall weight assigned to it. Within each head, the sub-heads should
also have appropriate weight distributions.
 A suitable metric has been proposed which computes a score under each
sub-head. The sub-head scores are then added to obtain scores for each
individual head. The overall score is computed-based on the weights
allotted to each head. The overall score can take a maximum value of 100.
 The Committee recommended the classification of institutions into two
categories:
 Category A institutions: These are institutions of national importance

set up by Acts of Parliament, State Universities, Deemed-to-be
Universities, Private Universities and other autonomous institutions.
 Category B institutions: These are institutions affiliated to a
University and do not enjoy full academic autonomy.
1.Most of our Best institutions are not excellent. NIRF, A govt
administered India specific ranking must find ways to avoid creating a
deceptive impression of excellence by declaring relative ranks when
the absolute scores are so poor. A cut-off of 60 marks on the absolute scores
can be used for including the institutes in the ranking list, even if the number
of qualifying institutions turns out to be very small to begin with.
2. The main reason behind the lack of excellence even in our best institutions,
except for IISc and JNCASR, is poor research productivity. The government
and corporate world have to more aggressively support and facilitate research
at the institutions. The teaching loads must be reduced to give faculty more
time for research.
3. The PG and PhD education has to be viewed separately by the policy makers
and education administrators. Mixing it with the UG education under the
broader category of higher education is diluting the attention on these.
4. The central govt needs to urgently do something to address this disparity.

The govt agencies must start supporting many more of the top 100 engg.
institutions with reasonable amount of research grants. On one hand the IITs
and a few others get funds even without asking, most other institutions
actually starve for the research grants. Peak excellence by a few can not be
achieved and sustained by starving all others of basic necessities. The budget
share for research funding must be significantly increased with a special focus
on institution other than IITs. IITs and a few others should have a reasonable
(upto 20-30%) but not an overwhelming share in the country’s research
funding at the universities. All institutions (govt or private) listed in the NIRF
top 100 should get a reasonable share in the research grants.
National Board of Accreditation (NBA)
The National Board of Accreditation (NBA) was the primary agency that was
given the overall responsibility of coordinating and executing the Ranking work
in consultation with the Implementation Core Committee, constituted by the
MHRD. NBA invited applications for registration of institutes for ranking in
various disciplines and the overall ranking. It co-ordinated with its
collaborators to execute all aspects of the ranking work, including finalization
of discipline-specific parameters in consultation with the domain experts and
with INFLIBNET Centre – its main collaborator.
INFLIBNET Centre
The INFLIBNET Centre was responsible for development of NIRF Web Portal
including data capturing system, perception capturing, feedback mechanism
and ranking platform. The Centre also provided and verified data on
publications and citations. The Centre also deployed technical help desk at its
premises.
All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
The AICTE was instrumental in providing authenticated data on institutes that

are approved for offering graduate and postgraduate-level courses in four
disciplines, namely engineering, management, pharmacy and architecture. The
AICTE also encouraged institutes to apply for ranking under NIRF framework.
University Grants Commission (UGC)
The UGC provided authenticated data on colleges and universities under its
purview. The UGC also encouraged universities and colleges to apply for
ranking under NIRF framework.
Academic Partners
Web of Science, Scopus and Indian Citation Index were used for retrieving data
on publications and citations. These three publishers were contacted to help
out in the process of retrieving data for some of the institutes that had applied
for ranking through NIRF.
Refrences:
 www.wikipedia.com
 https://nirfcdn.azureedge.net
 https://goelsan.wordpress.com
 https://nirfcdn.azureedge.net
 https://www.nirfindia.org
 https://goelsan.wordpress.com

English For Engineers: Digital Assignment 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

English For Engineers: Digital Assignment 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

English For Engineers: Digital Assignment 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIGITAL ASSIGNMENT 6

English for engineers

TOPIC – NIRF RANKING

The National Institutional Ranking Framework is a methodology adopted by

3. In many countries, this exercise has been outsourced to third parties, so

Criteria and Data analysis

Teaching, Learning & Resources

 Faculty-Student Ratio with Emphasis on Permanent Faculty (FSR).

 Combined Metric for Publications (PU).

 Combined Performance in Public and UniversityExaminations (PUE).

 Outreach Footprint (Continuing Education, Service) (CES).

 Process for Peer Rating in Category (PR).

Institutions, universities and colleges are supposed to register and upload

While the ranking depends heavily on self-declaration, asking institutes to

Research published only in renowned international journals like Scopous, Web

NIRF score is a reflection of where the institution is standing vis-a-vis other

Based on different parameters these rankings lay emphasis on :

1. The ranking methodology gives a significant importance to the perception of

3. Collectively looking at the top 100 engineering institutions, the fractions of

 The metrics for ranking of engineering institutions should be based on the

 Category A institutions: These are institutions of national importance

4. The central govt needs to urgently do something to address this disparity.

National Board of Accreditation (NBA)

The AICTE was instrumental in providing authenticated data on institutes that

University Grants Commission (UGC)

You might also like