The education landscape is continuously evolving, with the emergence of new disciplines, innovative educational models, and evolving workforce needs. As much as introducing them in our curriculum, it is also necessary to teach and research them with quality standards that the world accepts. Currently, accreditation and ranking are two tools used by various governments to measure quality. India does it through NAAC and NIRF, though both have faced various challenges and have suffered from credibility that questioned their effectiveness and reputation.
Primarily, ranking and accreditation agencies serve different purposes and employ distinct methodologies, though their evaluation parameters are similar. While ranking agencies aim to provide comparative evaluations of institutions based on specific criteria and indicators such as ‘Teaching-Learning-Resources’, ‘Research-Professional-Practice’, ‘Graduation-Outcomes’, ‘Outreach-Inclusivity’, and ‘Perception-focus on creating ordered lists called rankings, that allow institutions to be compared in terms of their perceived quality or performance, the accreditation agencies with similar parameters, primarily focus on evaluating the quality and integrity of educational institutions or their programs against established standards.
Whereas NAAC evaluation was expected to be qualitative, in practice it is about 30% qualitative, remaining being quantitative. NIRF is completely quantitative. While acknowledging that purely qualitative systems are statistically indeterminant, we must also acknowledge that quantitative systems are prone to gaming. While some data needed for assigning scores is given by the institutions, the rest is sourced from third party sites. Obviously, everything hinges on the data uploaded and its credibility.
Recently, the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), released its India Rankings 2023, under various categories such as Overall, Universities, Colleges, Research Institutions, and so on. Whereas some universities/institutions held on to their earlier positions, many dropped down the list. What is surprising however is, highly accredited universities such as MS University, Vadodara, Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies, the only private university in Delhi-NCR or the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai which all received accreditation in the A++ category have moved to 151 – 200 band in overall rankings. A logical expectation would have been that a well performing institution in a certain system would have done equally well in every other system.
Rankings in whichever country they originate from, are increasingly seen as a contest between some grand movie versus an also ran. Of course, one could be surprised once in a while, by a relatively unknown movie that may turn out to be a masterpiece. Should we then really be worried about rankings, or is there a case for them to be chucked out altogether?
Now that the rankings are out, can we really see the differences between the top ranked and others? For example, is there a measurable difference between a university positioned no. 1, and another marked 30? Is higher education only about these parameters? Are there important factors that cannot be measured? Is affordable education and campus life not important? There are many subtle elements such as learning beyond grades, diversity, food on campus, experiencing cultural milieu of the town where the university is located, some excellent teachers, emotional support, finding people to share once passion with, finding an emotional connect, are all factors that can never be measured.
Is accreditation, a much more representative metric, employing a more comprehensive and qualitative evaluation process, reviewing as it is, institutional documents, conducting site visits, and engaging in dialogue with institutional stakeholders, focussing on assessing adherence to specific standards and evaluating the institution’s ability to deliver quality education or services, a better option? That appears so.
The future universities must adopt quality assurance, that allows one to sue the university in case of default, as a way of life, guaranteeing educational services rather than fall back on rankings, ratings and outdated accreditation procedures. The universities must drive innovation, with new roles where students opt for flexible/designer degrees/certifications, and even provide opportunities for acceleration in education according to fast innovation cycles.
It’s is neither accreditation not ranking that builds quality. It is a passion for excellence alone, that defines the ultimate. Theodore Roosevelt, once said, “Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure… than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat”