The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), a vital tool for evaluating Indian educational institutions, faces mounting criticism from academics and administrators alike. Central to the controversy is the 20% weightage given to peer perception in the ranking criteria, which many argue skews the results and undermines the credibility of the rankings.
Peer perception, which involves gathering opinions from academics, employers, and others within the education sector, is intended to reflect how an institution is viewed by its peers. However, critics argue that this metric is inherently subjective and susceptible to bias. They claim that it can be disproportionately influenced by factors such as brand image, regional affiliations, and even personal connections rather than an institution's actual academic and infrastructural merits.
The NIRF, established by the Ministry of Education, has become increasingly influential since its inception, with its rankings affecting everything from funding allocations to student admissions and faculty recruitment. A high NIRF ranking can significantly enhance an institution’s reputation, attracting top students and faculty and securing lucrative research grants.
Yet, the lack of transparency in how peer perception scores are gathered and calculated has become a focal point of criticism. Institutions often question the survey methods used, pointing out that they are rarely privy to the specifics of who is surveyed and how their responses are weighed.
The debate over the NIRF’s methodology is not new, but it has gained traction as more institutions express dissatisfaction with the ranking outcomes. Smaller institutions, in particular, argue that they are disadvantaged by the current system, favouring established universities with more robust brand recognition.
As per the Hindu reports, stakeholders are calling to revise the NIRF’s evaluation criteria. Suggestions include reducing the weightage given to peer perception, increasing transparency in the survey process, and emphasising quantifiable metrics such as research output, student outcomes, and infrastructure quality.
As the debate continues, the call for a more balanced and transparent approach to the NIRF rankings is growing louder. Whether the framework will evolve in response to these critiques remains to be seen, but the demand for change is apparent.
