Like other rankings, the NIRF rankings act as an objective measure for students deciding on colleges, with each point shaping how an educational institution is perceived. A noticeable trend emerges as one moves down the ranking list: the score differences between institutions become increasingly narrow. For instance, in the 2024 rankings, under the overall category, the gap between the 1st and 10th ranked institutions was 17.89 points, but between the 91st and 100th rankings being only 1.2 points.
For generations, college education has been a gateway to upward mobility. In India, with over 6,000 higher education institutions across diverse fields, choosing the right college can be overwhelming — and that’s where rankings come into play. Rankings from sources like the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) from the Ministry of Education have a significant influence on students’ choices and admissions. Through constant publicity, these rankings gain a sense of authority, leading to the perception that higher-ranked institutions hold more value than others. Although rankings help simplify choices, they tend to be overemphasized.
In today’s story, we dive into the latest NIRF 2024 rankings and take a closer look at some notable flaws in their ranking methods. This update builds on our earlier in-depth stories based on the NIRF 2023 rankings. You can revisit those articles by clicking here, here, and here.
Score differences narrow as one moves down the rankings
These rankings often serve as an objective measure for students deciding on colleges, with each point shaping how an educational institution is perceived. A noticeable trend emerges as one moves down the ranking list: the score differences between institutions become increasingly narrow. For instance, in the 2024 rankings, under the overall category, the gap between the 1st and 10th ranked institutions was 17.89 points, but between the 11th and 20th, it shrinks to just 4.79. This continues to decline, with the difference between the 91st and 100th rankings being only 1.2 points.
When compared across institution types, medical institutions show the largest score differences, followed by engineering colleges and universities. Analysis of the data of 2021, 2023 and 2024 rankings show that, except for management institutions, most institution types experienced a decrease in score gaps within ranking bands. This highlights how even a small difference in scores can result in a significant shift in an institution’s position, sometimes placing them far from their traditional rank.
How is perception measured?
As the rankings show, every point significantly influences an institution’s overall score and rank, especially for those outside the top 10. Aware of this, institutions strive to improve wherever possible. However, among the various criteria in the ranking methodology, the one domain institutions have no control over is ‘Perception.’ This category is weighted at 10 points out of a possible 100.
The rankings do not clearly explain how perception is measured or calculated. The methodology document only mentions that it is derived from surveys conducted among employers, professionals from reputable organizations, and a broad range of academics. It is just a survey to gauge preference for graduates of different institutions.
The survey methodology, including the sample size, remains unclear. Effectively, institutions are competing for a score out of 90, as the remaining 10 points, based on perception, are largely beyond their control. Given that perception scores are primarily derived from surveys, there’s a considerable risk of bias influencing these rankings.
The 2024 report highlights that most votes from peers and employers are concentrated in a few key categories: Overall (21.25% and 24.17%), Engineering (16.69% and 18.79%), Research (16.54% and 13.71%), College (14.00% and 10.86%), and Management (10.03% and 15.48%). These fields are clearly perceived as more valuable than others. Conversely, categories like Law, Architecture and Planning, Pharmacy, Dental, Agriculture and Allied Sectors, and Innovation receive significantly fewer votes. While the report outlines preferences for broad categories of institutions, it remains unclear how individual institutions within these categories are assigned scores.
Average number of publications per institute on a rise
The publication of research papers remains a key indicator of an institution’s academic and research stature. In terms of research publication contributions, the ratio between the top 100 institutions and the remaining ones is 68:32 for Universities, 60:40 for Engineering, and 59:41 for Overall.
From 2020 to 2024, the average number of publications per institution increased from 299 to 388. In the university category, the average rose from 654 to 770, while in the Engineering category, it grew from 151 to 193. Other categories saw only marginal improvements.
A contributing factor to this surge in publications is the practice of self-citing, which some institutions use to inflate their rankings. This is reflected in the rise of research retractions from India, which increased 2.5 times between 2020 and 2022 compared to the period from 2017 to 2019. Additionally, a survey by India Research Watchdog found that more than 51% of respondents believe that university ranking parameters have led to an increase in scientific research misconduct.
Way forward
Unfortunately, manipulated rankings mislead students, doing more harm than good. As these rankings grow in popularity, some colleges exploit loopholes to boost their positions. There is a growing need to reevaluate the weightage in the NIRF methodology as some institutions with better financial resources invest heavily in refining their ranking profiles, such as hiring specialized consultants or focusing on activities designed primarily to improve their rankings.
As a result, achieving a higher NIRF ranking becomes more of a strategic manoeuvre rather than a true measure of an institution’s merit.
