<p>Recently, I visited an engineering college in Bengaluru, ranked among the city’s top five in its domain specialisation. During my discussion with the head of placement, I learned about an upcoming QS Rankings event in Hyderabad, designed to introduce Indian institutions to the globally recognised QS World University Rankings system.</p>.<p>When I asked how such international rankings would benefit a domestic institution, the academic officer shared an interesting insight: “Many of our students pursue higher studies abroad. A strong QS ranking helps them gain better admission prospects with top foreign universities.”</p>.<p>That made perfect sense. Yet it left me wondering: What about our own systems of ranking and accreditation? Are they serving our institutions—and our students—well enough on the global stage? Don’t we need to examine the limitations of India’s current frameworks—National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) and National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), and find a pathway for reform through the University Grants Commission (UGC)?</p>.<p><strong>The methodological divide</strong></p>.<p>India’s higher education system relies on frameworks like NIRF and NAAC to ensure quality and accountability. While these mechanisms have strengthened internal benchmarks, their methodologies diverge from globally recognised systems like QS Rankings. NAAC has traditionally focused on compliance—emphasizing infrastructure audits, teaching evaluations, and administrative protocols—yet has often overlooked global indicators such as internationalization, research impact, and reputation.</p>.<p>Its upcoming shift to Binary Accreditation and Maturity-Based Grading marks a promising step toward more progressive evaluation. NIRF, though data-driven, still leans heavily on university-reported metrics, with limited global standardization—leaving room for inconsistency. By contrast, QS Rankings integrate academic reputation (30%), employer reputation (15%), citations per faculty (20%), faculty-student ratio (10%), and international diversity and partnerships (25% collectively). These global metrics offer a more comprehensive view of institutional quality and visibility, enabling meaningful benchmarking with international peers.</p>.<p><strong>A matter of recognition</strong></p>.<p>NAAC accreditation is largely recognised within India, serving domestic goals. But as Indian institutions expand their international footprint, the lack of global recognition becomes a constraint. QS and similar rankings offer a platform for universities to engage with foreign collaborators, attract global talent, and boost student mobility. Without a mechanism that translates domestic credentials into international credibility, Indian universities risk being underrepresented and undervalued globally.</p>.<p>NAAC’s structured process involves extensive documentation and onsite inspections, which—while promoting standardisation—often result in a compliance-centric culture. Institutions may prioritise ticking boxes over transformative initiatives. QS rankings, by contrast, evolve with global academic trends. They reward interdisciplinary research, entrepreneurship, and global partnerships—qualities that drive innovation. Indian frameworks, focused heavily on administrative benchmarks, may inadvertently suppress creative disruption.</p>.<p>India’s research output has grown impressively in terms of volume, but citation metrics and impact indicators remain low in global comparison. NAAC’s tools for evaluating research lack depth and granularity. QS places strong emphasis on citations per faculty—a critical marker of research quality and influence.</p>.<p>If Indian institutions are to attract top faculty, international grants, and collaborative projects, they must realign research assessments toward impact, not just output. Real-world applications, patents, and industry linkages should be part of the evaluation matrix.</p>.<p><strong>What UGC should do</strong> </p>.<p>As India’s apex regulatory body, the UGC is uniquely positioned to unify domestic benchmarks with global aspirations. A transformative step would be the establishment of GRAISE—Global Recognition and Accreditation for Indian Standards in Education—a single, transparent, and globally accessible evaluation system that integrates the strengths of NAAC, NIRF, and internationally accepted standards. This move could redefine India’s academic identity on the world stage.</p>.<p>Reimagine accreditation philosophy: Adopt a dual-layer model: Binary Accreditation ensures foundational institutional quality, while a Maturity-Based Grading framework rewards consistency, innovation, and excellence. This flexible approach encourages institutions to progress without fear of punitive grading, fostering a culture of continuous improvement.</p>.<p>Build a unified data ecosystem: Develop a “One Nation One Data Platform”—a secure, standardised reporting interface. Real-time dashboards, machine-readable formats, and open APIs would enhance transparency, reduce paperwork, and cultivate trust among domestic and international evaluators.</p>.<p>Prioritise research and global talent: Shift from volume-based metrics to impact-oriented indicators such as patents, citations per faculty, and interdisciplinary research. Invest in globally relevant infrastructure, international fellowships, and faculty exchange programs to attract world-class talent.</p>.<p>Embed global collaboration: Facilitate dual-degree offerings, joint doctoral programs, and cross-border research projects. Through the GRAISE portal, students and institutions worldwide can explore partnerships, track institutional performance, and engage with verified alumni networks, making Indian institutions globally visible and accessible.</p>.<p>Shift to outcome-based evaluation: Emphasise real-world impact—graduate employability, innovation ecosystems, and student success stories—over static inputs. Encourage holistic student development through mentorship platforms, start-up incubation, and experiential learning. A public-facing discovery engine can guide aspirants to best-fit programs, building both accountability and aspiration.</p>.<p>India possesses the intellectual capital, demographic edge, and institutional depth to emerge as a global leader in higher education. But to do so, its accreditation and ranking systems must transform from policy checklists to innovation enablers. The shift from compliance to creativity, from infrastructure to impact, and from insularity to global relevance is not just desirable—it’s necessary. UGC’s leadership in this transformation will determine whether Indian institutions rise to global prominence or remain confined by local paradigms. The time to act is now.</p>.<p><em>(The author is the founder of a career counselling firm)</em></p>
<p>Recently, I visited an engineering college in Bengaluru, ranked among the city’s top five in its domain specialisation. During my discussion with the head of placement, I learned about an upcoming QS Rankings event in Hyderabad, designed to introduce Indian institutions to the globally recognised QS World University Rankings system.</p>.<p>When I asked how such international rankings would benefit a domestic institution, the academic officer shared an interesting insight: “Many of our students pursue higher studies abroad. A strong QS ranking helps them gain better admission prospects with top foreign universities.”</p>.<p>That made perfect sense. Yet it left me wondering: What about our own systems of ranking and accreditation? Are they serving our institutions—and our students—well enough on the global stage? Don’t we need to examine the limitations of India’s current frameworks—National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) and National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), and find a pathway for reform through the University Grants Commission (UGC)?</p>.<p><strong>The methodological divide</strong></p>.<p>India’s higher education system relies on frameworks like NIRF and NAAC to ensure quality and accountability. While these mechanisms have strengthened internal benchmarks, their methodologies diverge from globally recognised systems like QS Rankings. NAAC has traditionally focused on compliance—emphasizing infrastructure audits, teaching evaluations, and administrative protocols—yet has often overlooked global indicators such as internationalization, research impact, and reputation.</p>.<p>Its upcoming shift to Binary Accreditation and Maturity-Based Grading marks a promising step toward more progressive evaluation. NIRF, though data-driven, still leans heavily on university-reported metrics, with limited global standardization—leaving room for inconsistency. By contrast, QS Rankings integrate academic reputation (30%), employer reputation (15%), citations per faculty (20%), faculty-student ratio (10%), and international diversity and partnerships (25% collectively). These global metrics offer a more comprehensive view of institutional quality and visibility, enabling meaningful benchmarking with international peers.</p>.<p><strong>A matter of recognition</strong></p>.<p>NAAC accreditation is largely recognised within India, serving domestic goals. But as Indian institutions expand their international footprint, the lack of global recognition becomes a constraint. QS and similar rankings offer a platform for universities to engage with foreign collaborators, attract global talent, and boost student mobility. Without a mechanism that translates domestic credentials into international credibility, Indian universities risk being underrepresented and undervalued globally.</p>.<p>NAAC’s structured process involves extensive documentation and onsite inspections, which—while promoting standardisation—often result in a compliance-centric culture. Institutions may prioritise ticking boxes over transformative initiatives. QS rankings, by contrast, evolve with global academic trends. They reward interdisciplinary research, entrepreneurship, and global partnerships—qualities that drive innovation. Indian frameworks, focused heavily on administrative benchmarks, may inadvertently suppress creative disruption.</p>.<p>India’s research output has grown impressively in terms of volume, but citation metrics and impact indicators remain low in global comparison. NAAC’s tools for evaluating research lack depth and granularity. QS places strong emphasis on citations per faculty—a critical marker of research quality and influence.</p>.<p>If Indian institutions are to attract top faculty, international grants, and collaborative projects, they must realign research assessments toward impact, not just output. Real-world applications, patents, and industry linkages should be part of the evaluation matrix.</p>.<p><strong>What UGC should do</strong> </p>.<p>As India’s apex regulatory body, the UGC is uniquely positioned to unify domestic benchmarks with global aspirations. A transformative step would be the establishment of GRAISE—Global Recognition and Accreditation for Indian Standards in Education—a single, transparent, and globally accessible evaluation system that integrates the strengths of NAAC, NIRF, and internationally accepted standards. This move could redefine India’s academic identity on the world stage.</p>.<p>Reimagine accreditation philosophy: Adopt a dual-layer model: Binary Accreditation ensures foundational institutional quality, while a Maturity-Based Grading framework rewards consistency, innovation, and excellence. This flexible approach encourages institutions to progress without fear of punitive grading, fostering a culture of continuous improvement.</p>.<p>Build a unified data ecosystem: Develop a “One Nation One Data Platform”—a secure, standardised reporting interface. Real-time dashboards, machine-readable formats, and open APIs would enhance transparency, reduce paperwork, and cultivate trust among domestic and international evaluators.</p>.<p>Prioritise research and global talent: Shift from volume-based metrics to impact-oriented indicators such as patents, citations per faculty, and interdisciplinary research. Invest in globally relevant infrastructure, international fellowships, and faculty exchange programs to attract world-class talent.</p>.<p>Embed global collaboration: Facilitate dual-degree offerings, joint doctoral programs, and cross-border research projects. Through the GRAISE portal, students and institutions worldwide can explore partnerships, track institutional performance, and engage with verified alumni networks, making Indian institutions globally visible and accessible.</p>.<p>Shift to outcome-based evaluation: Emphasise real-world impact—graduate employability, innovation ecosystems, and student success stories—over static inputs. Encourage holistic student development through mentorship platforms, start-up incubation, and experiential learning. A public-facing discovery engine can guide aspirants to best-fit programs, building both accountability and aspiration.</p>.<p>India possesses the intellectual capital, demographic edge, and institutional depth to emerge as a global leader in higher education. But to do so, its accreditation and ranking systems must transform from policy checklists to innovation enablers. The shift from compliance to creativity, from infrastructure to impact, and from insularity to global relevance is not just desirable—it’s necessary. UGC’s leadership in this transformation will determine whether Indian institutions rise to global prominence or remain confined by local paradigms. The time to act is now.</p>.<p><em>(The author is the founder of a career counselling firm)</em></p>