The views expressed regarding the four criteria for NIFR are more or less agreeable and acceptable to me. We need to rethink about the following points too:
- Financial diversity:The institutions in India are diversified say institutes of national importance, central universities, State universities, deemed or private universities, govt colleges, govt. aided college and self-financed institutes. Type of funding to thee institutes play a key role. Hence we need to have different yard sticks for each category.
- It is a matter of grave concern how is that not a single institute/university Can secure a position in the first 100 top world universities?
- WE need to struggle for global competitiveness, else no fruitful outcome one can derive from NIRF.
- We have provisions since the last one decade like PBAS, APIs, academic audit like . The question is how many institutes are observing them in actual practice including Process and Performance Appraisal?
- The huge work of accreditation or NIRF heavily demands three things: number of accreditation agencies (more than one is preferred, private agencies welcomed), trained and reliable inspection teams (number is adequate at present) and trained inspectors (no consistent provision on national level, we assume say senior teachers means trained inspectors).
- What is about the ROI of NIRF to the country?
Regards,
Dr. P H Waghodekar, PhD (Egg), IIT,KGP, IE&M, 1985,
Advisor (HR), IBS & PME (PG)
Marathwada Institute of Technology,
NH 211, Beed by pass road,
Aurangabad: 431010 (Maharashtra) INDIA.
(O) 02402375113 (M) 7276661925
E-Mail: waghodekar@rediffmail.com
Website: www.mit.asia
and
Chairman, Advisory Board, MTC Global, Bangalore.
Engineering & Management Education: An Engine of Prosperity.
Classroom teaching must match with Boardroom needs!
From: "Prof. Bholanath Dutta"
Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:20:33
To: join_mtc
Subject: [MTC Global] Will an India-centric ranking help?
The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), launched in 2015 by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), released its second rank list recently. The five broad parameters considered for ranking are "Teaching, Learning and Resources", "Research and Professional Practices", "Graduation Outcomes", "Outreach and Inclusivity" and "Perception". The Indian Institute of Science (IISc), seven Indian Institutes of Technology and two universities, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Banaras Hindu University, found their place in the top 10 educational institutions in the country. The Indian Institute of Science bagging the numero uno position for the second time in a row did not surprise anyone as it was the first Indian educational institution to make it to the list of top 100 universities, according to the THEWUR, for engineering and technology in 2015-2016 by securing the 99th position.
Priorities
Now, the most important question is whether the indigenous India-wide and India-centric ranking system, an annual exercise, will help improve the quality of higher education system in India.
If the intent of the government is to improve the quality of higher education and encourage our premier institutions to compete with top world-class universities that figure frequently in THE and QS rank lists, the government should be really sincere and vigorous in translating its intent into reality. To make its vision to be reflected in its mission, NIRF should prioritise its goals.
The government should make NIRF mandatory for all higher education institutions. By encouraging institutions to participate in the NIRF ranking system, the government can make them realise the need to improve their quality and academic performance and the importance of being accountable to the stakeholders.
The government should categorise institutions and disciplines as Central universities, State universities, government-funded/aided engineering and technology universities/colleges, private engineering and technology universities/colleges, government-funded/aided arts and science colleges, private arts and science colleges, and so on, and a separate ranking list should be prepared based on the parameters specified.
It is unfair to make a tiger (institutions that are funded by the government and well-established) to compete with a cat (self-financed institutions that have certain limitations); though, it is a fact that some private educational institutions are far better than government-run institutions in terms of infrastructure, faculty, quality of education, and so on.
The data and information provided by the institutions that apply for ranking should be verified thoroughly and MHRD should not hesitate to name and shame the institutions that provide false data. Verifying the data is the responsibility of the organisation that scrutinises the applications.
Teaching, learning and resources: Not all teachers with educational qualifications can become good academics. Teaching and learning will be effective if educational institutions have qualified, resourceful, experienced and committed teachers.
In many private educational institutions, including professional ones, the quality of teachers is not up to the mark. One of the reasons for this is most teachers are not paid on par with their counterparts working in government or government-aided institutions. Expecting a poorly-paid person to be a good teacher and researcher is like expecting a miracle.
Research and professional practices: It is not the quantity but the quality, originality, relevance and usefulness of research papers that matter. Of late, there has been unhealthy competition among educational institutions to produce as many research papers as possible. Focus on quantity will result in poor quality, characterised by manufacturing of data, plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
The conventional view that all teachers at the tertiary level should also be researchers should be looked at critically. It is good if teachers are active researchers too. What is desirable is always not possible. Forcing teachers who do not have inclination for research to produce research papers will have an adverse effect.
Outreach and inclusivity (OI): This parameter includes continuing education, service, percentage of women students and faculty, percentage of economically and socially disadvantaged students and facilities for physically-challenged students. OI is an important parameter and educational institutions should follow it in letter and spirit. It is the view of many international educationists and thinkers that educational institutions should pay more attention to community engagement. Stuart Laing, former deputy vice-chancellor and emeritus professor at the University of Brighton, says in an article, "Working in our local areas is much more than charity for higher education institutions." Just like Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Institute Social Responsibility (ISR) should be emphasised.
How great it will be if each educational institution adopts a few villages! When the faculty and students interact with the villagers and impart their knowledge and skills to the rural people, they will learn many useful lessons in the process and thus will contribute to nation building.
In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., "The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education."
-- Priorities
Now, the most important question is whether the indigenous India-wide and India-centric ranking system, an annual exercise, will help improve the quality of higher education system in India.
If the intent of the government is to improve the quality of higher education and encourage our premier institutions to compete with top world-class universities that figure frequently in THE and QS rank lists, the government should be really sincere and vigorous in translating its intent into reality. To make its vision to be reflected in its mission, NIRF should prioritise its goals.
The government should make NIRF mandatory for all higher education institutions. By encouraging institutions to participate in the NIRF ranking system, the government can make them realise the need to improve their quality and academic performance and the importance of being accountable to the stakeholders.
The government should categorise institutions and disciplines as Central universities, State universities, government-funded/aided engineering and technology universities/colleges, private engineering and technology universities/colleges, government-funded/aided arts and science colleges, private arts and science colleges, and so on, and a separate ranking list should be prepared based on the parameters specified.
It is unfair to make a tiger (institutions that are funded by the government and well-established) to compete with a cat (self-financed institutions that have certain limitations); though, it is a fact that some private educational institutions are far better than government-run institutions in terms of infrastructure, faculty, quality of education, and so on.
The data and information provided by the institutions that apply for ranking should be verified thoroughly and MHRD should not hesitate to name and shame the institutions that provide false data. Verifying the data is the responsibility of the organisation that scrutinises the applications.
Teaching, learning and resources: Not all teachers with educational qualifications can become good academics. Teaching and learning will be effective if educational institutions have qualified, resourceful, experienced and committed teachers.
In many private educational institutions, including professional ones, the quality of teachers is not up to the mark. One of the reasons for this is most teachers are not paid on par with their counterparts working in government or government-aided institutions. Expecting a poorly-paid person to be a good teacher and researcher is like expecting a miracle.
Research and professional practices: It is not the quantity but the quality, originality, relevance and usefulness of research papers that matter. Of late, there has been unhealthy competition among educational institutions to produce as many research papers as possible. Focus on quantity will result in poor quality, characterised by manufacturing of data, plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
The conventional view that all teachers at the tertiary level should also be researchers should be looked at critically. It is good if teachers are active researchers too. What is desirable is always not possible. Forcing teachers who do not have inclination for research to produce research papers will have an adverse effect.
Outreach and inclusivity (OI): This parameter includes continuing education, service, percentage of women students and faculty, percentage of economically and socially disadvantaged students and facilities for physically-challenged students. OI is an important parameter and educational institutions should follow it in letter and spirit. It is the view of many international educationists and thinkers that educational institutions should pay more attention to community engagement. Stuart Laing, former deputy vice-chancellor and emeritus professor at the University of Brighton, says in an article, "Working in our local areas is much more than charity for higher education institutions." Just like Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Institute Social Responsibility (ISR) should be emphasised.
How great it will be if each educational institution adopts a few villages! When the faculty and students interact with the villagers and impart their knowledge and skills to the rural people, they will learn many useful lessons in the process and thus will contribute to nation building.
In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., "The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education."
Source: The Hindu
EDUCATE, EMPOWER, ELEVATE
president@mtcglobal.org
Cell: +91 96323 18178 / +91 9964660759
The views expressed are individual and not necessarily MTC Global also share the same views. To unsubscribe from the group , please send an email to join_mtc@googlegroups.com and write the heading as 'Unsubscribe'. Immediate action will be taken.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Management Teachers Consortium, Global" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to join_mtc unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
The views expressed are individual and not necessarily MTC Global also share the same views. To unsubscribe from the group , please send an email to join_mtc@googlegroups.com and write the heading as 'Unsubscribe'. Immediate action will be taken.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Management Teachers Consortium, Global" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to join_mtc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment