Higher Education Institutions, Self-Assessment, Quality Improvement, Collaborative Environment, Competition and Race, Strategic Planning, Institutional Leadership, QS WUR, THE WUR, NIRF India Ranking

Behind the paper

While I was working with QS WUR, THE WUR, NIRF India Ranking, Institute of Eminence and External Peer Review for our institute, an idea came in my mind for any college, institution or university, that if there is any mechanism to conduct institutional internal ranking for the self-assessment, quality improvement, and fostering a competitive and collaborative environment among different departments, centers, or schools within the same college, institution or university, that will help to present in time complete data to QS WUR, THE WUR and NIRF and that will also help to academic leader for interactive monitoring and evaluation every unit progress and they will also be able take appropriate decisions in providing all kind support to respective unit where intervention urgently needed.   Therefore, in academic leaders', managers', and different rankings' perspectives, every college, institution, or university may conduct an independent higher education ranking, including a benchmark based on robust, stable, and scalable key performance indicators (qualitative and quantitative) and appropriate weightages assigned to major and each sub-parameter, keeping in mind to consider financial, access to institution, and regional factors to evaluate the performance of the institution and to ensure the quality of the education, research, collaboration, graduate outcome, and financial growth. Finally, I have proposed a set of KPIs derived to implement and evaluate the outputs and outcomes for each academic and research department once a year after the academic session is over and also proposed a conceptual framework which is mentioned below for the same and the system that will contribute to better, higher-quality, more efficient, market-oriented academic and research programs due to the enforcement of inter-departmental race and awareness and also the implementation of very tight monitoring and providing all kinds of  support of each department and the institution as a whole through findings obtained from the independent institutional rankings. The college, institution, or university will also have a provision to nominate awards and honors for the top three best performers every year. I hope the approach will definitely help in careful planning for the continuous development and improvement, including evidence-based assessment and decision-making, and also performance comparisons between the participating academic units within the institution.

Depending on the robust, stable, and scalable key performance indicators, the approach will require sustainable, appropriate, and effective data collection to calculate these indicators in terms of scores and percentiles and then use them to judge the quality of academic and research performance and future planning. As a result, the whole process will project the institution as a good performer during participation in the QS World University Rankings, Times Higher Education Rankings, and NIRF India Rankings due to their readiness. The system will also have complete and quality data at the institutional level at any point in time to present in the said rankings.

The goal of the proposed institutional internal rankings may visualize the following:

Finally, I have published a research paper in an international journal in the same domain. Please see the detailed roadmap for the above and the paper published from [1].

A proposal submission under the track global engagement in the same area was also accepted for presentation and discussion by the QS Higher Education Summit, Kuwait.

I have also felt to summarize the quality, accreditation, ranking, rating, and institutional internal rankings below:

Why Quality, Accreditation, Ranking, and Rating?

I have felt to discuss in detail the roles of rankings, accreditation, and rating. Both ranking and accreditation evaluate educational institutions; they serve different purposes and use different methodologies. The ranking and accreditation processes are both considered assessment tools for quality assessment of higher education institutions (HEIs), and both will have a significant impact on the performance outcomes in terms of quality education and research. A rating question asks us to compare different items using a common scale of 1-10. An individual evaluation. While a ranking question asks us to compare different items directly to one another. Ranking evaluation based on participation of more than one institution. Quality, accreditation, ranking, and rating are tools for quality assurance mechanisms that help the students to choose courses and institutions on the basis of grades or ranks. It would enable them to make informed choices. However, assessing the quality of education is an extremely difficult and delicate exercise. Education is a service that is not a one-shot affair. Delivery of education is a process and lasts over a period of time. In terms of learning, education is a continuous process. Primarily, the level of motivation of the teachers, along with the infrastructure, governance of the institutions, and course curriculum, determines the quality.

Rankings

Ranking compares institutions relative to each other based on performance metrics. Ranking is competitive and comparative.

Accreditation

Accreditation assesses whether an institution meets predefined quality standards set by an official accrediting body. It’s a quality assurance process, not a comparison. Accreditation determines if an institution or program is officially recognized as meeting minimum quality standards. Accreditation is a formal process through which an educational institution or program is evaluated to determine whether it meets established standards of quality and effectiveness set by a recognized accrediting body. Accreditation is granted by government-approved or independent accrediting agencies. Accreditation applies to institutions or programs. Institutional accreditation assesses the entire college, institution, or university, and programmatic accreditation focuses on specific programs. Accreditation is valid for a fixed period, after which institutions must undergo re-evaluation. Accreditation is often required for granting valid degrees, receiving government funding, and qualifying for certain professional exams.

World University Rankings

World University Rankings are important because they provide a comparative evaluation of universities across the globe based on specific criteria such as academic reputation, research output, teaching quality, international outlook, and employer reputation. They allow universities to measure their performance against international standards. Prospective students, especially international ones, use these rankings to choose where to study based on quality, reputation, and academic strengths. High rankings can help institutions attract top faculty, researchers, students, and financial investment from governments or private partners. Rankings provide data that universities can use to identify strengths and weaknesses and shape future academic and administrative strategies. Governments and stakeholders may use rankings to inform higher education policy and allocate resources. Rankings also influence how universities are perceived globally. A strong position in global rankings enhances a university’s reputation and increases opportunities for partnerships and research collaboration with other institutions worldwide.

Domestic Rankings

Domestic rankings are important because they focus on evaluating and comparing universities within a specific country, using criteria that are often tailored to local educational priorities, contexts, and needs. They help students who plan to study and work within their home country choose the best institutions based on national standards. Help employers assess the quality of graduates from institutions within their hiring market. Motivate universities to improve based on national benchmarks and remain competitive within the country. Governments and educational bodies use domestic rankings to monitor and improve the performance of their higher education systems, often linking results to funding or reform. While global rankings emphasize international prestige and research output, domestic rankings provide a more comprehensive view of how universities serve their home country.

Magazine Rankings

Domestic magazine rankings are widely circulated and easy to understand, often reaching a broader audience, and can shape how institutions are viewed nationally. Domestic magazines often have a better understanding of regional issues (equity, regional diversity, or affordability) and education systems. Because of their visibility, these rankings incentivize universities to improve in areas valued by the public, such as teaching quality, infrastructure, and student services. Magazine rankings often assess a wide range of factors. Rankings published in popular magazines reach students, parents, policymakers, and employers and help in shaping public perception and decisions. Appearing in top magazine rankings boosts a university’s or institution’s brand, attracting students, faculty, and funding.

Internal Institutional Rankings

Internal rankings within higher education institutions will serve as a valuable tool for self-assessment, quality improvement, and fostering a competitive and collaborative environment among different departments, centers, or schools within the same college, institution, or university. The internal rankings will allow different units within an institution to compare their performance against each other using institution-specific criteria. This will help identify strengths and weaknesses. By highlighting areas of underperformance, internal rankings can also drive targeted initiatives for improvement. For instance, if one department consistently scores low on student satisfaction in an internal survey, the university can allocate resources or implement strategies to address this issue specifically within that department. Internal rankings can contribute to a culture of accountability by setting benchmarks and tracking progress annually. Heads of departments, centers, or schools can use these rankings to evaluate their unit's performance and identify areas where they need to focus their efforts. While fostering healthy competition, internal rankings can also encourage collaboration and the sharing of best practices among different units. Departments that perform well might be asked to mentor or share their strategies with those that are struggling. Internal rankings can provide valuable data for the institution's overall strategic planning. By understanding the relative performance of different units, the university leadership can make informed decisions about future directions and investments. Sharing the methodology and results of internal rankings (appropriately) within the institution can promote transparency and open communication about performance and goals. The institution can decide on the weightage assigned to each parameter based on its priorities. Some colleges, institutions, or universities may incorporate internal ranking elements into their annual performance reviews of departments, centers, or schools, using a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) aligned with the institution's strategic goals. Ranking criteria might be used to identify top-performing units for internal awards and recognition. Internal rankings can play a role in allocating competitive internal research grants or funding for new initiatives. Annual internal benchmarking reports that rank different units based on specific metrics can serve as an internal ranking mechanism. Some institutions may use internal dashboards that track the performance of different units against key indicators used in the internal ranking system. Internal rankings can also help institutions prepare for and improve their performance in external ranking frameworks like QS WUR and THE WUR and for NIRF in the case of Indian Institutions. By focusing on the parameters that are considered in external rankings, institutions can identify areas where they need to improve to achieve better external rankings. However, the primary focus of internal rankings remains internal improvement and strategic alignment.

In conclusion, higher education institutional internal rankings may be considered a valuable tool for college, institution, or university to understand their internal landscape, drive improvements, and achieve their strategic objectives. By using tailored methodologies and relevant parameters, institutions can foster a culture of excellence and continuous enhancement.

References

 [1] Ali, M.G. (2025). Introducing and Evaluating Key Performance Indicators and Generating Awareness of Competence among Inter-Departments for Quality Performance and Quality Assurance in Large Academic and Research Multidisciplinary Institutions. International Journal of Educational Research Review. Volume 10, Issue 1.