[ad_1]
Last month, the Ministry of Higher Education released India Rankings 2023. Known as the National Institutional Ranking Framework, NIRF attempts to rank Indian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) across 13 categories and subject areas. More than 5,000 institutions have been ranked this year and the top 100 (in some cases as many as 200) institutions in each category have been announced.
It is quite understandable, and as is normal in an exercise of this size and scope, that NIRF ratings have generated considerable controversy over the years. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the data and the significance of the data in the classification.
A certain degree of discomfort with any rating system is not abnormal. However, it is interesting to note that much of the discussion has focused on the accuracy – or lack thereof – of the ratings. Surprisingly, there has been little, if any, deliberation on the message that holds the world rankings for higher education in India. What are the political implications of this report or other similar reports? After all, an elaborate national ranking or accreditation process, accomplished after great effort, cannot be an end in itself. Before we look at the policy implications, it will be helpful to look at the results.
Consider some results related to just one metric – Publications. Of the 1,194 higher education institutions surveyed, contributions from the top 100 higher education institutions accounted for 64 percent of the most highly cited publications (HCPs). If we consider the 397 universities surveyed, the top 100 universities contribute more than 70 percent of healthcare providers. For the 1,139 engineering colleges surveyed, the corresponding figure for the top 100 colleges is over 66 percent. This exercise can be done across multiple parameters and we will likely get the same painful results. Moreover, this data only represents the 5,000 or so organizations that were surveyed. More than 35,000 institutions, nearly 90 percent of the ecosystem of Indian higher education institutions, have not even been surveyed. So it seems that the vast majority of higher education institutions in the country provide neither knowledge nor skills. There are other sobering facts – the vast majority of graduates of higher education institutions are unemployed unless they are heavily retrained, and most need a “special skills course” before they find a job. Also of concern is the fact that, with the exception of a few well-known higher education institutions, the country’s top-level institutions have little international standing.
Therefore, it is crucial that rather than being viewed as mere ranking exercises, these accreditation or assessment efforts are used as data points to understand the health of the Indian higher education system and devise appropriate policy responses. How should I finish this?
There are at least three policy responses that merit urgent consideration. Current university and college recruitment processes are neither transparent nor free from bias and delay. Besides, once faculty members are appointed, there is no mechanism for checking or sanctioning non-performance. The method of appointments should be re-examined and mechanisms should be devised so that higher education institutions not only recruit the best potential candidates but also encourage and motivate performance. The current selection process – which is largely interview based – should be replaced by a more objective and transparent exercise. A matrix of incentives – and disincentives – for faculty excellence should also be put in place by higher education institutions.
Most universities and institutions are largely publicly funded and therefore not accountable to market forces. This is why regulators and funders must demand and enforce strict accountability. Funding agencies, including the state, must link financing to performance. For example, policymakers will have to seriously consider allocating additional resources to the performance of higher education institutions and constraining staffing and other resources at non-functioning institutions, unless they demonstrate a basic level of accountability and willingness to improve performance. Bellwether universities must be subject to stricter standards in this regard. The exit or consolidation policy of higher education institutions, the entry of for-profit higher education institutions, including foreign universities, and providing colleges with flexibility to affiliate to any university without geographical restrictions are other important policy measures.
The World Economic Forum report indicates that 65 percent of children who enter primary school today will eventually end up working in entirely new types of jobs that do not even exist today. Thus the formal education system faces the problem of “the unknown”—preparing students to face the problems of tomorrow’s world when the problems themselves are unknown. This is why the creation and dissemination of knowledge must be participatory and forward-looking. Current policies overemphasize academic credentials as well as the concepts of “seniority” and “eligibility”. These artificial restrictions, barriers to entry, and silos between academics and outsiders must be dismantled. Instead, we should encourage lateral entry of practitioners and other experts into higher education institutions 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.
Institutions of higher education in India must lead the country’s transition to a knowledge economy. But for this, they must first change themselves.
Kansal is an IAS Officer and Sengupta Professor of Economics at Jammu University. Opinions are personal
[ad_2]
