Higher education: Good database key

A lot has been written about the issue of student evaluation right from pre-school to higher education but the last decade has seen a phenomenal landscape of evaluation of higher educational institutes either by way of assessment and accreditation or by ranking.

The prominent bodies providing for accreditation/ranking in India are: National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) for Institutional Accreditation, National Board of Accreditation (NBA) for Departmental Accreditation, National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) for ranking of institutions under various categories, that is universities, colleges, engineering institutions, management institutions etc, Atal Ranking of Institutes on Innovation and Achievements (ARIIA) by the Ministry of Education, and Clean and Smart Campus Award by AICTE among others.

Some of the international players offering accreditation protocols in India are EQUIS, AMBA, ABET, AACSB and in case of ranking, by QS, world university ranking by Times Higher education etc. In the non-governmental space, Times Engineering/B schools ranking, QS I Gauge rating, ISO certification, career 360 ranking, outlook rating etc, are visible. In addition, a few state governments have created protocols for ranking institutions under various categories within the state.

Looking at the field impact of the of above frameworks, one ‘Deemed to be University’ has achieved the following: 41st rank in university category, 58th rank in the engineering category and 70th rank in the management category as per NIRF ranking 2020 (valid for one year and may change every year). The same university is in the top-most grade A++ of NAAC accreditation process (valid for five years). The university also figures in the Times Engineering Survey 2020 at rank 5 in placement and do not figure among top 20 institutes in research capability. In the QS India ranking do not figure in the first 100.

Another ‘Deemed to be University’ with NAAC A++ grading figures in Times Engineering Survey for placement at rank one, research capability at rank 5 and rank 32 under university category of NIRF.What does this maze of numbers mean to the stakeholders, particularly the students and parents, for the selection of an institution to pursue higher education, is anybody’s guess. Till date, no comprehensive survey is available which establishes a correlation between accreditation/ranking and large scale student movement towards that institution. The general perception is that word of mouth and placement records of an institution drives student mobility to a certain extent. University of Delhi graded A+ (NAAC) attracts a large number of students from across India than possibly A++ university located elsewhere. Needless to say, it is just not grading but a lot of other factors which determines the choice of institutions.

What drives some institutions to go into multiple accreditation/ranking processes? Perceptions on the issues that have emerged are branding, government linking assessments to funding, universities using it for renewal of affiliation/autonomy, top leadership and management eagerness to be in lime light, peer pressure, aim for additional financial resources, attracting students nationally/internationally etc.

One of the disturbing fallouts of the above over drive is that assessment and ranking processes which in the present scenario is highly data-intensive, consumes enormous institutional time and energy, of the faculty and administrative staff. They have to collect and collate data in various combinations as desired by all of these bodies in preparation of a self-study report/evaluation document. Many times, it is also followed by visits to the institution by peer/evaluation teams adding additional time and resource demands.

Faculty time

In fact, as per NAAC’s requirement, all accredited institutions need to submit Annual Quality Assurance Report to be eligible for subsequent cycles of accreditation. A perpetual demand on faculty time.

Sir C V Raman, in his convocation address to the Banaras Hindu University in 1926, lamented: “Our universities are so engrossed today with the task of conducting examinations and with innumerable meetings of boards and faculties, courts and councils, and senates and syndicates, that they have no time to perform the highest function of university which is to stimulate intellectual activity and advance knowledge”.

It is time to reflect on the essence of the above statement and also see that an internationally recognised process of accreditation/ranking helps us in achieving the goals of quality sustenance and enhancement in our higher educational institutions. The process in itself should not inadvertently create a barrier against the very purpose it is meant for, that is, continuous improvement.

It is warranted that regulatory authorities come together and create `one nation-one institution’ from which all pertinent data can be drawn. The database to be created should be crisp and meaningful and not drown the existing system in the name of change.

The emerging thought that quality is intrinsic to the institution and should be tackled internally rather than excessively adhere to evaluation mechanisms from outside, is noteworthy. The National Policy of Education 2020 reflects the above thought by advocating autonomy to institutions with light and tight regulation through accreditation.

(The writer was formerly Adviser, NAAC, Bengaluru and founder Director of University of Mumbai Quality Assurance Cell)