Irrespective of the years that pass by, we all look back at our college days as the fondest memories of our lives. The sudden token of freedom and a new world of adventures make the thrill all more exciting in its essence. For the future ahead, your college becomes the bastion for the planned, or unplanned, career, which is why making it to a premier institute is all you wish for, with the hope the brand alone may be the gateway to lucrative packages and a (superficial) sense of superiority.
Well, it is in this context that I thought that college rankings announced by NIRF (National Institutional Ranking Framework) held immense significance, and served as the litmus test of excellence. But looking at the rankings, I was appalled, to say the least. I, therefore, dug deeper into the know-how of this NIRF framework, established by the Human Resource ministry. And after careful analysis, I inferred that these ranks barely had anything to do with the dimensions of our college environment and their ground-level reality.
- First of all, the rankings nowhere have the provision of taking the feedback of the alumni. Besides, the experience of students is not taken into account either, while assessing the parameters. This, by far, is the largest blot on the genuineness of the results.
- The NIRF rankings have been said to present a major deviation from the QS global rankings. In that case, it’s only fair to doubt the authenticity of our national ranks. Ever since this system began, not even once were the global and national ranks aligned.
- These figures are more focused on the structural features, such as the student-teacher ratio, instead of bigger concerns like how education is being imparted in the four walls of our classroom. Education seems to have taken a backseat in front of other conditions.
- The vague criterion of ‘perception’ only suggests how the assessment procedure is misguided to include presumptive notions, instead of assessing the ground reality. This loosely defined parameter is fetching high scores to those institutes which, in my opinion, are subpar in terms of quality.
- The index of outreach and inclusivity, including the element of students’ diversity, hurts regional colleges in competition, as they mostly consist of local students. So does this mean that local regional colleges with no diaspora or migrant population are already lesser qualified institutes?
- The criterion of placements clearly states how our focus is still guided by salary numbers, instead of an evaluation of the all-round development of an individual. Practicality and realism are given no importance at all, while bookish knowledge stands tall as the best career torch-bearer.
- Why is no parameter incorporating extra-curricular activities in the assessment? Performing arts are nowhere taken into consideration in these rankings. It is a horror. Aren’t we focusing on wholesome development of our students, or we are just moving towards producing academically proficient robots?
Therefore, in such conditions, the reliance on these rankings becomes a cause of concern. Such an ill-conceived positioning not only confuses students aspirations but also affects the morale of institutions. In my opinion, you are your own best judge, so don’t take decisions on the basis on what’s written in the magazines; do your own research! Look out for what you want in college rather than just blindly trusting the random rankings by the government. Make your college life an enriching experience, one that stays with ýou forever!