We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
๐๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐ฎ๐ง๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฐ๐๐. A major chunk (35%) of the rankings depends directly on the size of the college.
One might have philosophical differences with the parameters used by NIRF. Some might find faults in its methodology of collecting data. Others might question the veracity of the data submitted by colleges.
All these are mere details compared to the fundamental flaws in the ranking parameters. The biggest flaw of NIRF (and international rankings too) is that ๐ฌ๐ข๐ณ๐ ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ฒ๐ฌ ๐๐ง ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฅ๐.
In the graphs below, we have plotted four different NIRF parameters against Student Strength (also a NIRF parameter). All of them are highly dependent on the size of the institution. Altogether they make up 35% of NIRF rankings.
๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก (6% weightage) : Why is this a parameter in the first place? Size can never be an indicator of quality!
๐๐ฎ๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ (10.5%) : NIRF counts the total number of publications from an institution. It follows that bigger the institution, more the number of publications. You don't need to be a 'data scientist' to understand that number of publications should be counted in terms of per-capita.
๐๐๐๐ซ ๐๐๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง (10%) : This parameter is the most problematic of all parameters. Firstly, it is highly subjective and ascertained through a survey. More importantly, we see in the graph that it is also highly dependent on size. This is not surprising as the bigger the college, the more known it is (through advertisements etc.).
๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ (4.5%) : Same problem as number of publications. Counting total number without dividing by the size is again giving advantage to bigger institutions.
๐๐ฎ๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ (4%) : If the college is big, it will have more PhD students (Duh!).
Total weight = 6% + 10.5% + 10% + 4.5% + 4% = 35%
Instead of doing all this, ๐๐๐๐ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ 35% ๐ฐ๐๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ๐๐ ๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ณ๐ and it wouldn't change the rankings much. That's how stupid the current parameters are.
Given this, any college can climb up the rankings quite simply by ๐ข๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ค๐. In fact many private universities have done exactly that, ๐๐ฏ๐๐ง ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง๐ญ. Students are being cheated and used by these colleges.
This is just the surface of what is wrong with NIRF. It is crazy that they have ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ซ 6 ๐ฒ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ and no one at NIRF has noticed or corrected this.
We hope this analysis reaches them and helps correct these glaring mistakes.