How rankings such as NIRF do more harm than good
The author argues that institutional rankings like the NIRF are detrimental to higher education because they oversimplify complex academic performance into a single number. The piece suggests that such frameworks ignore vital aspects like teaching quality and holistic student development.
Why it matters
It challenges the current methodology of academic evaluation, suggesting that current metrics may incentivize institutions to prioritize ranking criteria over actual educational outcomes.
Institutional rankings in higher education, such as the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) whose 2026 edition is expected to be released soon, are bad for institutions because it ignores the core criteria regarding education: it does not assess teaching and the holistic development of students. As a result, it presents a misleading picture to students.
(Sign up for THEdge, The Hindu’s weekly education newsletter.)
Does this mean that there should be no evaluation of institutions? The answer is yes; there should be evaluation, but converting it into a single number has problems. First, the criteria for evaluation are many, and they cannot be put as a rank on a single point scale. A single number gives an incomplete or wrong picture.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in