Universities urge reforms in NIRF ranking methodology amid fairness concerns

Universities across India have called for urgent reforms in the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), citing the need to update criteria that have remained largely unchanged since the framework’s inception a decade ago.

The demand comes amid growing concerns over transparency and fairness in how institutions are evaluated.

A meeting on Oct 17 at IISc Habitat in Delhi brought together education officials, university representatives, and accreditation experts to discuss the proposed changes.

Education Secretary Vineet Joshi chaired the session, which included Anil Sahasrabudhi, Chairman of the Executive Council of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council, along with delegates from the IITs of Roorkee, Mumbai, Madras, Delhi, and Bhubaneswar, as well as representatives from National Institutes of Technology and universities from states including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Jammu & Kashmir.

The discussion was prompted in part by the controversy surrounding the National Rankings 2025, where some universities saw unexpected fluctuations in their positions.

For the first time, the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) engaged Ernst and Young for third-party verification before releasing the results in September 2025.

A senior educationist, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a major concern was the weight assigned to the “Perception” factor.

“Perception is a relative term. By giving ten marks out of 100 in the rankings to this aspect, it was not a fair assessment,” he said.

While the ranking committee claimed to have consulted peers, professors, and the public before evaluating perception, many university representatives argued that the criterion should be removed entirely.

Another point raised was the 20 marks allocated to Graduation Outcome (GO), which currently measures only the number of graduates entering employment.

“There are hundreds of students who take over their family business or run their own start-ups. This is not given any weightage. Hence, there should be value attached to these aspects too and not just for those who go into traditional forms of employment,” the educationist added.

Participants also highlighted that institutions not recognized by the National Medical Commission, Dental Council of India, Bar Council of India, or All India Council for Technical Education were included in the rankings, which they said should be reconsidered.

Additionally, technical universities, numbering around 20 nationwide, were reportedly excluded from the rankings.

One institute head said, “They need to be included. Such competition will help them improve their professional standings and make them competitive.”

The meeting concluded with broad consensus on the need to review the NIRF methodology, update criteria, and ensure that rankings fairly reflect institutional performance, graduate outcomes, and innovation.