Are National Rankings the Last Word on Choosing a College?

With NEET proceeding despite delays and CUET now a major gateway to central universities and colleges, thousands of students and parents across India are once again confronted with the task of selecting a college. In this search, one of the first references they are likely to encounter is the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) rankings.

Colleges prominently advertise their ranks, coaching institutes cite them and admission discussions often revolve around them. As a result, NIRF rankings increasingly shape students' perceptions of institutional quality. However, before using these rankings as a guide for admission decisions, it is worth asking a simple question: what exactly do these rankings measure and how well do they reflect the educational experience of an average student?

The government of India introduced the NIRF as a common system for evaluating higher education institutions across the country in 2015. Over the years, it has become the most influential ranking mechanism in Indian higher education. NIRF assesses institutions through five broad parameters, which are further divided into 14 metrics, each carrying a different “weight” and intended to capture a specific aspect of institutional performance.

At first glance, these metrics seem to provide a complete picture of a college or university. However, not all NIRF metrics provide an accurate and uniform picture from a student's perspective. Looking at key indicators behind a rank can often provide a better basis for choosing a college.

One of the metrics used in NIRF is “Student Strength”, which carries a weightage of 8 marks out of the total 100 marks used for ranking institutions. Under the current methodology, a college with around 5,000 students can earn nearly 7 out of 8 marks, while a college with about 1,000 students receives only around 4 marks. But does a larger student population necessarily mean a better college? Not necessarily.

Smaller institutions often provide closer interaction with faculty, easier access to mentors, smaller class sizes and a stronger sense of academic community. For many students, particularly those seeking individual attention and guidance, these factors can be more valuable than the size of the institution.

Therefore, while choosing a college, students should consider whether the size of the institution matches their preferred learning environment. Institutional size should not be mistaken for educational quality.

Also read: University Rankings and How They Affect Academic Responsibility in the Globalised Era

Another important component of NIRF is research, which accounts for nearly 15 marks out of the total 100. The framework places considerable emphasis on research publications and citations indexed in international databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. This approach works reasonably well for science, engineering and medical institutions, where journal articles are the primary form of scholarly output. However, the situation is quite different in the humanities and social sciences.

Subjects such as history, political science, philosophy, English, sociology and even parts of economics often generate scholarship through books, monographs, translations, critical essays and policy reports rather than journal articles indexed in international databases. For example, a historian may spend a decade researching and writing a landmark book that significantly reshapes our understanding of a period, region or social process, yet that contribution may receive little recognition under citation-based metrics.

As a result, institutions with strong liberal arts traditions and highly respected scholars may receive lower research scores than their academic reputation would suggest. Students interested in these disciplines should therefore look beyond the overall research score and pay closer attention to the quality of departments, faculty expertise and the achievements of alumni.

Another important and somewhat controversial component of NIRF is the “Placement and Higher Education” parameter, which includes placements and progression to higher education and carries a weightage of 10 marks in college rankings. A major concern with this metric is that the underlying data is reported by institutions themselves. Given the large number of participating institutions, NIRF has limited capacity to independently verify every placement and higher education claim.

As a result, the system relies heavily on the accuracy and integrity of institutional reporting.

For many students, placement figures appear to be the most direct measure of a college's success. However, they capture only a narrow set of outcomes. Students who secure jobs contribute positively to the score, while those pursuing higher education master's programmes, MBAs or PhDs, are also counted favourably.

But what about students preparing for the civil services examination, judicial services, defence services, research fellowships, entrepreneurship, public policy or social development careers? Many of India's most respected colleges have produced civil servants, academics, scientists, writers, journalists and social leaders whose contributions emerge over many years and are not reflected in immediate placement statistics. Students interested in such career paths should therefore be cautious about judging a college solely on placement numbers.

The limitation becomes even more apparent in the higher education component. A student admitted to a highly selective programme at Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, an IIT or an IIM contributes to the score in essentially the same way as a student enrolling in any other open learning postgraduate programme or distant learning course. The framework records whether a student has entered higher education, but it does not adequately measure the quality, competitiveness, or long-term significance of that progression. Consequently, institutions that consistently send students to some of the world's most prestigious universities receive little additional recognition for doing so.

For students evaluating colleges, the placement and higher education score should therefore be seen as only one piece of the puzzle. The quality of alumni outcomes often matters more than the quantity reported in ranking tables.

It is also worth remembering that the difference between Rank 5 and Rank 15 is often much smaller than it appears. Rankings create the impression of a precise hierarchy, but educational quality is rarely so straightforward. Some of the most important aspects of a college cannot be easily captured by numerical indicators. Intellectual culture, classroom discussions, extracurricular opportunities, alumni networks, campus environment, student diversity and the dedication of teachers often shape a student's educational journey far more profoundly than a composite score.

Also read: Parliamentary Panel Says CUET's MCQ Format Not Fit for Disciplines Centred on Independent Thinking

None of this means that NIRF should be dismissed. On the contrary, it remains an important and valuable source of information. The framework has encouraged institutions to improve data collection, invest in faculty development, strengthen research activities and pay greater attention to student outcomes and accountability. The problem begins only when rankings are treated as a verdict rather than a guide.

Students should use NIRF as one element of a broader decision-making process. They should explore the strengths of individual departments, examine faculty profiles, interact with current students and alumni, consider internship and research opportunities and think carefully about their own interests and long-term ambitions. A college that is ideal for one student may not be the best fit for another.

As the admission season gathers pace, students and parents will inevitably consult the NIRF rankings while preparing their preference lists. They should certainly do so, but with a critical eye. The best college is not necessarily the highest-ranked college. It is the one that best nurtures your academic interests, supports your career ambitions, and helps you grow as an individual. In the end, that is a decision no ranking system can make on your behalf.

Dr Akshay Rana is assistant professor at the Department of Physics, St. Stephen’s College.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.