Open main menu

National Institutional Ranking Framework

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) 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.[1] 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. About 3500 institutions voluntarily participated in the first round of rankings. The 2017 ranked lists were released by MHRD on 3 April 2017.[2]

National Institutional Ranking Framework
National Institutional Ranking Framework logo.png
FrequencyAnnual
PublisherMinistry of Human Resource Development
First issue2016
CountryIndia
LanguageEnglish
Websitewww.nirfindia.org/Home

Contents

Formation of the NIRFEdit

MHRD organized a one-day workshop on 21 August 2014 on evolving methodologies for the ranking of institutions of higher education in India. The meeting resolved to constitute a Committee for evolving a National Ranking Framework. Later it was also decided to co-opt representatives of Central Universities and IIMs also into the proposed Committee. Based on these decisions, a Core Committee consisting of 16 members was constituted on 29 October 2014 with Secretary (HE, MHRD, as Chairperson and Additional Secretary (TE), MHRD, as Member-Secretary. The other members were the Directors of the IIT's at Kharagpur and Madras, the Vice-Chancellors of Delhi University, EFL University, Central University of Gujarat and JNU, Directors of the IIM's at Ahmedabad and Bangalore, Directors of School of Planning and Architecture (Delhi), NIT (Warangal), ABV-Indian Institute of Information Technology & Management (Gwalior), IISER (Bhopal), NAAC (Bangalore) and Chairperson of NBA (New Delhi).[3]

The terms of reference of the Committee were:

  • Suggest a National Framework for performance measurement and ranking of
  1. Institutions;
  2. Programmes;
  • Suggest the organizational structure, institutional mechanism and processes for implementation along with time-lines of he National Ranking Framework.
  1. Suggest a mechanism for financing of the Scheme on National Ranking Framework.
  2. Suggest linkages with National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) and National Board of Accreditation (NBA), if any.

The Core Committee identified a set of measurable parameters to be used as metrics for ranking the institutions. These parameters were grouped into five major headings. The committee suggested the weightages to be assigned to various groups of parameters in the case of institutions of engineering education and left the task of carrying out similar exercises for institutions of other disciplines to other competent agencies. The initial draft of the report was prepared by Surendra Prasad, Chairman, National Board of Accreditation and Member of the Core Committee.

The University Grants Commission constituted an Expert Committee on 9 October 2015 to develop a framework for the ranking of universities and colleges in India and the framework developed by this Expert Committee has been incorporated into NIRF.[4] The Core Committee also suggested a framework for ranking institutions offering management education also.[5] The All India Council for Technical Education developed parameters and metrics for ranking institutions offering pharmacy education[6] and also architecture education.[7]

Recommendations of the Core CommitteeEdit

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.

Parameters and their weightagesEdit

Engineering, management, pharmacy and architecture institutionsEdit

The approved set of parameter groups and the weightages assigned to them in respect of institutions offering progrtammes in engineering, management, pharmacy and architecture are given in the following table.

Parameters Category A
institutions
Category B
institutions
Teaching, learning and resources (TLR) 0.30 0.30
Research, professional practice and collaborative performance (RPC) 0.30 0.20
Graduation outcome (GO) 0.15 0.25
Outreach and inclusivity (OI) 0.15 0.15
Perception (PR) 0.10 0.10

Overall and collegesEdit

The approved set of parameter groups and the weightages assigned to them in respect of overall rating and for colleges are given in the following table, for 2018.

Parameters Overall[8] Colleges[9]
Teaching, learning and resources (TLR) 0.30 0.40
Research, productivity, impact and IPR (RPII) 0.30 0.15
Graduation outcome (GO) 0.20 0.25
Outreach and inclusivity (OI) 0.10 0.10
Perception (PR) 0.10 0.10

CriticismEdit

The list was criticised for being incomplete, incoherent and bordering on the random.[10] Indian Institute of Technology (BHU) Varanasi raised objection on NIRF ranking, accusing it of being based on incomplete data.[11]

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ "National Institutional Ranking Framework: Overview". MHRD, Government of India. Retrieved 5 April 2016.
  2. ^ "India Rankings 2016". National Institutional Ranking Framework. MHRD, Government of India. Retrieved 5 April 2016.
  3. ^ a b National Institutional Ranking Framework: A Methodology for Ranking of Engineering Institutions in India (PDF). Department of Higher Education Ministry of Human Resource Development Government of India. September 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2016.
  4. ^ A Methodolog y for Ranking of Universities and Colleges in India (PDF). Department of Higher Education Ministry of Human Resource Development Government of India. 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2016.
  5. ^ A Methodology for Ranking of Management Institutions in India (PDF). Department of Higher Education Ministry of Human Resource Development Government of India. 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2016.
  6. ^ A Methodology for Ranking of Pharmacy Institutions in India (PDF). All India Council for Technical Education. 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2016.
  7. ^ A Methodology for Ranking of Architecture Institutions (PDF). All India Council of Technical Education. 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2016.
  8. ^ "Ranking Metrics for Overall" (PDF). nirfcdn.azureedge.net. p. 9. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
  9. ^ "Ranking Metrics for Colleges" (PDF). nirfcdn.azureedge.net. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
  10. ^ Three Charts Show What’s Wrong With the NIRF University Rankings
  11. ^ http://indianexpress.com/article/education/iit-bhu-raises-objection-on-nirf-ranking-2017-says-list-based-on-incomplete-data/