[ad_1]
Last month, the Department of Higher Education released the India Rankings 2023. Commonly known as the National Institutional Ranking Framework, the NIRF attempts to rank Indian higher education institutions (HEIs) across 13 categories and subject domains. This year over 5,000 institutions were ranked and the top 100 institutions (in some cases up to 200) declared in each category.
Quite understandably, and as is natural in an exercise of this size and scope, the NIRF rankings have generated considerable debate over the years. Questions have been raised about data fidelity and the relevance of the data to the rankings.
A certain degree of unease over any ranking system is not unnatural. However, what is interesting to note is that much of the discussion has focused on the accuracy — or the lack of it — of the rankings. Surprisingly, there has been very little deliberation on what message, if any, the rankings hold for the Indian higher education ecosystem. What policy implications flow from this or similar other reports? After all, an elaborate national ranking or accreditation exercise, accomplished after considerable effort, cannot be an end in itself. Before we look at the policy implications, a look at the findings will be instructive.
Consider some of the findings related to just one metric — publications. Of the 1,194 HEIs surveyed, contributions from the top 100 HEIs comprised 64 per cent of the highly cited publications (HCPs). If we consider the 397 universities surveyed, the top 100 universities contribute more than 70 per cent of the HCPs. For the 1,139 engineering colleges surveyed, the corresponding figure for the top 100 exceeds 66 per cent. This exercise can be conducted across multiple parameters and we are likely to get the same distressing results. What is more, this data only represents the 5,000 or so institutions surveyed. Over 35,000 institutions, nearly 90 per cent of the Indian HEI ecosystem, have not even been surveyed. It seems, therefore, an overwhelming majority of the country’s HEIs provide neither knowledge nor skills. There are other sobering facts — a vast majority of graduates of the HEIs are unemployable unless massively retrained, and most of them need a “private skill course” before they find a job. Also worrying is the fact that, except for a handful of well-known HEIs, top-bracket institutions in the country have little international standing.
It is, therefore, critical that instead of being looked at as simply ranking exercises, these accreditation or evaluation efforts be used as data points to understand the health of the Indian higher education system and devise adequate policy responses. How should this be done?
There are at least three policy responses which merit urgent consideration. The current recruitment processes in universities and colleges are neither transparent nor free from biases and delays. Besides, once faculty are recruited, there is no mechanism to check or penalise non-performance. The mode of appointments has to be re-examined and mechanisms devised so that HEIs not only appoint the best possible candidates but also encourage and incentivise performance. The current selection process — largely interview-based — must be replaced by a more objective and transparent exercise. A matrix of incentives — and disincentives — for excellence in faculty performance should also be devised by the HEIs.
Most universities and institutions are largely public-funded and hence not accountable to market forces. That is why regulators and funders must demand and impose strict accountability. Funding bodies, including the state, must link funding to performance. For example, policymakers will have to seriously consider allocating additional resources to performing HEIs and restrict hiring and other resources in the non-performing ones, unless they display a basic level of accountability and willingness to improve performance. Bellwether universities must be held to stricter standards on this account. An exit or consolidation policy for HEIs, entry of for-profit HEIs, including foreign universities, and providing colleges with the flexibility to affiliate with any university without geographical constraints are other important policy measures.
A World Economic Forum report indicates that 65 per cent of children entering primary school today will ultimately end up working in completely new job types that do not even exist today. The formal education system is thus faced with the problem of the “unknown unknown” — preparing students to face the problems of tomorrow’s world when the problems themselves are unknown. This is why knowledge creation and dissemination have to be participatory and forward-looking. The current policies overemphasise academic credentials as well as notions of “seniority” and “eligibility”. These artificial constraints and entry barriers and silos between academics and outsiders must be dismantled. Instead, we must encourage the lateral entry of practitioners and other experts to HEIs to redesign curricula, innovate teaching practices and make learning flexible and skill-based. In the same spirit, traditional academics can be encouraged to enter other professions through a lateral exit system.
India’s HEIs have to lead the country’s transformation to a knowledge economy. But for this, they have to transform themselves first.
Kansal is an IAS officer and Sengupta is Professor of Economics at the University of Jammu. Views are personal
[ad_2]
