You are here: Home > Miscellaneous
All posts from

NIRF Ranking Framework for Universities & Colleges 2016

Organisation : National Institutional Ranking Framework NIRF
Announcement : Ranking Framework for Universities & Colleges

Want to comment on this post?
Go to bottom of this page.

Notification :
Home Page :

Ranking Framework for Universities & Colleges :

This framework outlines a methodology to rank institutions across the country. The methodology draws from the overall recommendations broad understanding arrived at by a Core Committee set up by MHRD, to identify the broad parameters for ranking various universities and institutions.

Related : NIRF Ranking Framework for Architecture Institutions :

The parameters broadly cover “Teaching, Learning and Resources,” “Research and Professional Practices,” “Graduation Outcomes,” “Outreach and Inclusivity,” and “Perception”.

Salient Features :
** Methodology involves defining a set of metrics for ranking of universities and colleges based on the parameters agreed upon by the Core Committee (CC).

** These parameters are organized into five broad categories that have been further grouped into a number of sub-categories. Each broad category has an overall weight assigned to it. Within each category, the sub-categories also have an appropriate weight distribution.

** An attempt is made here to 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.

** 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.

** The institutions can then be rank-ordered based on their scores.

Ranking based on Institutional Category :
** In view of the distinct primary mandate and objectives of universities and colleges, separate ranking is designed for these two distinct categories of institutions.

** The universities would include institutions of national importance set-up by the Acts of Parliament, Central universities, State universities, Deemed-to-be universities, Private universities and other autonomous degree-awarding institutions. The colleges would include Autonomous Colleges that are affiliated to universities and do not enjoy full academic autonomy.

** While score computations for some of the parameters are similar for both of these categories on most counts, the benchmarks are somewhat different on a few parameters, to take into account the ground realities, which may be very different for the two categories. This also creates a level playing field for both categories.

** The weights assigned to different components have been adjusted to reflect different mandates and expectations from universities and colleges.
** Even where the assessment metrics are similar, their computation (where percentile calculations or normalizations are involved) is based on their respective categories.
** If implemented in this manner and spirit, the ranking methodology will produce two separate rankings, one for universities and one for colleges.

Data Collection :
** In view of the absence of a reliable and comprehensive database that could supply all relevant information required for computing the scores for ranking, it is imperative that the university and colleges that are desirous of participating in the ranking exercise will be required to provide the data in the prescribed format.

** It is recommended that the data submitted by university and colleges onto NIRF website, should also be made available on publicly visible website by these institutions in the interest of transparency. The data should remain there in an archived form for the next 3 years to enable easy cross-checking, whenever required.

Institutions that fail to do this honestly or resort to unethical practices should be automatically debarred from participation in the future ranking exercise for a period of two years.

Their names may also be displayed on the ranking portal indicating the nature of their unethical conduct. An attempt should also be made by the Ranking Authority to maintain the archived form of this data for due diligence as needed.

** The Ranking Authority or Agency or Board should be empowered to take up a random check on records of the institution and audited accounts to ensure that the principles of ethical behaviour are being adhered to.

** For some of the parameters, the data could be populated from internationally available bibliographic and citation databases (like Scopus, Web of Science, Indian Citation Index and Google Scholar). This is indicated in the Assessment Metrics. The Ranking Agency should directly access data from these resources, if necessary.

** Similarly, some data can be made available through a national effort. For example, data about success in public examinations can be easily compiled, if all concerned bodies (UPSC, State PSCs, SSC, GATE, NET, CAT, GMAT, CMAT, etc.) conducting such examinations prepare an institution-wise list providing details of the total number of aspirants and successful candidates from each institution.

** Similarly universities, including affiliating ones, should be able to provide examination results data in the appropriate format to evaluate the component of Graduate Outcomes (GO).

Implementation Details :
** A Committee should be set up to oversee the process initially till an appropriate Ranking Agency is established.
** A suitable Ranking Authority/Agency should be identified orformed and empowered.
** The Ranking Agency should invite institutions intending to participate in the ranking exercise to submit their applications in the prescribed format by a specified date, every year through an online portal to be set-up for this purpose.
** The Ranking Agency will extract the relevant data from the online portal, compute various metrics and rank institutions. This process should be completed and rankings published before commencement of the academic session.

Summary of Ranking Parameters for Ranking Universities :
S. No. | Parameters |Marks| Weightage
1 Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR) 100 0.30
2 Research Productivity, Impact and IPR (RPII) 100 0.40
3 Graduation Outcome (GO) 100 0.05
4 Outreach and Inclusivity (OI) 100 0.15
5 Perception (PR) 100 0.10

Cumulative Sheet :

Sl. No. |Parameter |Weightage / Marks
1.0 Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR) (Ranking Weightage =0.30)
A. Teacher Student Ratio with emphasis on Permanent Faculty 25 Marks
B. Combined Metric for Faculty with Ph.D. and Experience 25 Marks
C. Metric for Library and Laboratory Facilities 40 Marks
D. Metric for Sports and Extra Curricular Facilities 10 Marks

2.0 Research Productivity, Impact and IPR (RPII) (Ranking Weightage =0.40)
A. Combined Metric for Publications 45 Marks
B. Combined Metric for Citations 45 Marks
C. Intellectual Property Right 10 Marks

3.0 Graduation Outcome (GO) (Ranking Weightage =0.05)
A. Combined Performance in University Examinations 50 Marks
B. Combined Performance in Public Examinations 50 Marks

4.0 Outreach and Inclusivity (OI) (Ranking Weightage =0.15)
A. Outreach Footprint(Continuing Education, Services) 25 Marks
B. Percentage of Students from Other States/Countries 25 Marks
C. Percentage of Women Students and Faculty 20 Marks
D.Percentage of Economically and Socially Disadvantaged Students 20 Marks
E. Facilities for Differently Abled Persons 10 Marks

5.0 Perception (PR) (Ranking Weightage =0.10)
Process for Peer Rating in Category 50 Marks
Application to Seat Ratio 50 Marks

Leave a Reply

How to add comment : 1) Type your comment below. 2) Type your name. 3) Post comment. © 2021

Contact Us   Privacy Policy   SiteMap