NIRF Rankings: Who Benefits? Who Doesn’t? Nuances that nobody is talking about

In India, similar to global trends, rankings like the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) have become a buzzword in the higher education ecosystem. However, for every group of stakeholders passionately debating rankings, there exists another group that remains largely indifferent. Education is always contextual, so let us explore the nuances and underlying dynamics of rankings better to understand their implications (on mindsets and ecosystems).

1. Who Cares About Rankings?

• Key Stakeholders: Governments, promoters, consultants, and institutional administrators care deeply about rankings. For them, rankings are a validation tool and a marker of prestige.

• The Student Perspective: Students—the real end beneficiaries of education—rarely factor rankings into their decision-making. They care more about practical factors like location, affordability, placements, and future opportunities. Terms like “NIRF” or “NAAC” rarely figure into their decision-making process. Even 15 years ago, when I entered my engineering institution, rankings were not a factor. The same holds true for majority of students, even today. 

Takeaway: Rankings are primarily a concern for institutional stakeholders, not for students. 

2. Hiring Consultants for Rankings Isn’t Unethical, But It Is Exclusive

There’s often judgment about institutions hiring consultants to climb ranking ladders. But is it any different from:

• Students hiring MBA admission consultants to get into top B-schools?

• Parents hiring consultants for US undergrad applications?

• Job seekers networking with mentors to break into dream companies?

Knowing the “formula for success” has always been a strategy of the well-informed, well-resourced and privileged. Similarly, institutions seeking professional advice to improve their metrics isn’t wrong. Hiring experts to increase rankings definitely does not guarantee a rank in itself, but it definitely helps to understand what it takes to be better.

However, this approach isn’t accessible to all. Climbing rankings requires intent, effort, and significant investment. Unfortunately, Tier 2 and Tier 3 colleges—those that could benefit the most from external guidance—often cannot afford consultants. This further widens the gap between top-tier institutions and those struggling to rise.

Takeaway: Seeking help to climb rankings is a strategy, not an ethical dilemma, but it remains inaccessible to institutions that need it most.

3. The Problem of Exclusivity in Rankings

The numbers tell a stark story:

• Out of 1,100+ universities in India, only 100 (in each category) get ranked.

• Out of 40,000+ colleges, only 100 make it to the rankings.

This is like saying that in a class of 50 students, only the top 5 get ranked. (and these few students are the toppers of the class, in any scenario – formal assessment, surprise quiz or debate – an outcome deeply stemming from continued pure privilege and exposure.) What motivation do the remaining 45 have to even try?

Rankings naturally favour institutions that are already doing well. Historically renowned institutions—those aspirational in my parents’ generation and still so today—continue to dominate. Tier 2 and Tier 3 colleges, serving a significant proportion of India’s student population, are often left out of the narrative. Without adequate resources or support, these institutions are unable to compete, perpetuating a cycle of exclusion.

Takeaway: Rankings reward institutions already at the top, offering little support or motivation for those striving to improve (important to note: the intention is never to do the latter; it is simply an implicit consequence). 

4. What Students Actually Want vs. What Rankings Reflect

Here’s the reality: students prioritize outcomes that rankings often overlook. Factors like proximity, affordability, placements, and immediate employability hold far greater weight in their decisions than parameters like research output or international collaborations.

This disconnect becomes glaring when we consider that graduates from top NIRF-ranked institutions in India often face unemployment. If rankings truly reflected educational effectiveness, wouldn’t these top institutions consistently produce job-ready graduates? The fact that they don’t point to a deeper issue: rankings fail to align with the changing demands of the workforce and the actual needs of students.

Takeaway: Rankings are missing the mark on addressing employability and the evolving expectations of the job market.

Conclusion: The Real Insights

• Rankings are a validation tool for institutional stakeholders, not a decisive factor for students.

• Hiring consultants for rankings is a strategic move, not an unethical one, but it is often inaccessible to the institutions that need it most.

• The framework disproportionately favours historically established institutions, leaving little room for colleges that need the most.

• Rankings do not reflect employability, a key issue for students and society at large.