The rankings debate misses India's real higher education challenge

Release of QS World University Rankings 2027 in June has once again triggered the usual debate over the relevance and fairness of such rankings. There are 14 Indian institutions among the world's top 500 universities, prompting celebration in some quarters and sharp criticism in others. Many questioned not just the methodology but also the credibility of such exercises. The sentiment is no different even when India's education ministry releases its National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF).

Globally, more than 50 organisations rank universities, though QS and Times Higher Education rankings are the most influential. Each uses its own indicators and weightages. So, the same university often occupies different positions across rankings, raising legitimate questions about objectivity, comparability and credibility.

Consider IIT Delhi, ranked 118th by QS 2027. Its 'Citations per Faculty' score - a robust indicator of research impact - is an impressive 97.3. Yet, its 'Academic Reputation' score, based largely on perception surveys, is only 64.6. It also scores modestly on employability, even though leading global companies compete aggressively for IIT-D graduates.


Contrast this with University of Buenos Aires, ranked 84th. Its 'Citations per Faculty' score is just 2.1. Yet, it enjoys exceptionally high academic and employer reputation scores. Such anomalies leave one wondering whether rankings measure academic excellence or merely reinforce flawed market perceptions.

But dismissing rankings altogether would be a mistake. Every ranking, however imperfect, tells a story. Our responsibility is neither to blindly celebrate nor reject the numbers, but to interpret them objectively and ask how the gaps can be addressed.

China offers a lesson. Four Chinese universities, including Hong Kong, now feature among the world's top 20, and 11 among the top 100. Peking University and University of Hong Kong have 'Citations per Faculty' scores of 99.2 and 98.7, respectively - only marginally higher than IIT Delhi's 97.3. If our leading institutions are already globally competitive on the most demanding research indicator, then why do they underperform on the others?

Part of the answer lies within our institutions. During GoI's Atal Ranking of Institutions on Innovation Achievements (ARIIA), obtaining complete data from some of India's most premier public institutions was difficult. The problem was rarely a lack of achievements, but absence of systems to systematically document, analyse and present institutional data.

Private universities approach rankings differently. They invest in dedicated teams, maintain comprehensive databases, and treat rankings as a strategic branding exercise. At times, during ARIIA, their submissions had to be carefully scrutinised for exaggerated claims. So, there were two contrasting challenges: extracting data from premier public institutions, and verifying data submitted enthusiastically by private ones.

This difference reflects a broader mindset. Rankings today are not won through research excellence alone. They demand professional institutional management with global outlook, robust data systems, international engagement, alumni tracking, employer outreach and teams that understand ranking methodologies.

India should ask whether its premier institutions are agile enough to deliver at the highest global standards in a rapidly changing higher education landscape, and whether we are getting the best return, given the very high public investment. The discussion must, therefore, extend beyond rankings to 'return on public investment'.

Government institutions receive substantial funding through research grants and strategic projects. A bureaucrat once candidly admitted that allocating projects to IITs or other central institutions is administratively safer, because such decisions are rarely questioned by auditors or media. Funding a capable private institution invites greater scrutiny, regardless of merit.

If India aspires to be a global knowledge leader, this mindset must change. Public funding should increasingly follow demonstrated excellence, rather than institutional labels.

Rankings are not perfect, and should never become the sole measure of academic quality. But neither are they meaningless. They are mirrors that expose both our strengths and weaknesses. The real challenge is not to improve our rankings but to build universities whose excellence makes high rankings inevitable.

The writer is former CIO,ministry of education, GoI