A Methodology for Ranking Engineering Institutions in India

[Pages:97]A Methodology for Ranking of

Engineering Institutions in India

Department of Higher Education

Ministry of Human Resource Development

Government of India 2015

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Sl. No.

i ii iii iv v

1.0 1.a 1.b 1.c 1.d

2.0 2.a 2.b 2.c 2.d 2.e

Title Message by Hon'ble Minister of Human Resource Development Preface Composition of Committee of National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) - Governemnt of India Order Executive Summary Salient Features Ranking based on Institution Categories Data Collection Miscellaneous Recommendations Implementation Details

Part ? I Parameters and Metrics for Category `A' Institutions Overview /Summary of Ranking Parameters Finalized by MHRD Cumulative Sheet Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR) Faculty ? Student Ratio with Emphasis on Permanent Faculty (FSR) Combined Metric for Faculty with PhD and Experience(FQE) Metric for Library and Laboratory Facilities (LL) Metric for Sports and Extra-Curricular Facilities , Activities (SEC) Research, Professional Practice & Collaborative Performance (RPC) Combined Metric for Publications (PU) Combined Metric for Citations(CI) IPR and Patents: Granted, Filed, Licensed (IPR) Percentage of Collaborative Publications and Patents (CP) Footprint of Projects and Professional Practice (FPPP)

Page No. v

vii ix

xi xii xii xiii xiv xv

3

4 5 7

9

11 12

13

15 16 17 19 20

i

Table of Contents

Sl. No. 3.0

3.a

3.b

3.c 4.0

4.a 4.b

4.c 4.d

4.e 5.0

5.a

Title Graduation Outcome (GO) Combined Performance in Public and University Examinations (PUE) Combined Percentage for Placement, Higher Studies and Entrepreneurship (PHE) Mean Salary for Employment (MS) Outreach and Inclusivity (OI) Outreach Footprint(Continuing Education, Service) (CES) Percentage of Students from Other States/Countries (Region Diversity-RD) Percentage of Women Students and Faculty (WS) Percentage of Economically and Socially Disadvantaged Students (ESDS) Facilities for Physically Challenged Students (PCS) Perception (PR) Process for Peer Rating in Category (PR)

Page No. 21 23

25

26 27 29 30

31 32

33 35 37

Part ? II Parameters and Metrics for Category B Institutions

Overview /Summary of Ranking Parameters Finalized by

41

MHRD

Cumulative Sheet

42

1.0

Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR)

43

1.a Faculty ? Student Ratio with Emphasis on Permanent

45

Faculty (FSR)

1.b Combined Metric for Faculty with PhD and Experience

47

(FQE)

1.c Metric for Library and Laboratory Facilities (LL)

49

1.d Metric for Sports and Extra-Curricular Facilities, Activities

51

(SEC)

ii

Table of Contents

Sl. No. 2.0

2.a 2.b 2.c 2.d 2.e 3.0 3.a

3.b

3.c 4.0

4.a 4.b

4.c 4.d

4.e 5.0

5.a

Title

Page No.

Research, Professional Practice & Collaborative

53

Performance (RPC)

Combined Metric for Publications (PU)

55

Combined Metric for Citations(CI)

56

IPR and Patents: Granted, Filed, Licensed (IPR)

57

Percentage of Collaborative Publications and Patents (CP)

59

Footprint of Projects and Professional Practice (FPPP)

60

Graduation Outcome (GO)

61

Combined Performance in Public and University

63

Examinations (PUE)

Combined Percentage for Placement, Higher Studies and

65

Entrepreneurship (PHE)

Mean Salary for Employment (MS)

66

Outreach and Inclusivity (OI)

67

Outreach Footprint (Continuing Education, Service) (CES)

69

Percentage of Students from Other States/Countries-Region 70 Diversity (RD)

Percentage of Women Students and Faculty (WS)

71

Percentage of Economically and Socially Disadvantaged

72

Students (ESDS)

Facilities for Physically Challenged Students (PCS)

73

Perception (PR)

75

Process for Peer Rating in Category (PR)

77

iii

Message

I am very pleased to launch the Ranking System Framework for Higher Educational Institutions of India. This is the first time that a reliable, transparent and authentic ranking system is being implemented in the country for Higher Education.

The primary purpose of this framework is to galvanize Indian institutions towards a competitive environment that exists in the world today. Clear definition and identification of key parameters can help institutions to work sincerely towards improving their ranking. These parameters are strong pointers of quality of scholarship of the faculty & students and the student-caring culture of the institutions. There is also a strong message in the chosen parameters, which is particularly relevant to the education scenario in our country.

I sincerely hope that institutions will use this ranking framework to introspect and make sincere efforts to improve their standing, which will be beneficial for the country. Ranking and Accreditation are two important tools for a movement towards quality, and I am happy that we are taking this strong step in the direction of a transparent and clearly defined ranking framework.

The Ranking framework will empower a larger number of Indian Institutions to participate in the global rankings, and create a significant impact internationally too. I see this as a sensitization process and an empowering tool, and not a tool for protection.

I appreciate the efforts of the Core Committee, which has delivered this long pending task in a very short time. I am confident that with this document and the consequent ranking of Higher Institutions, these Institutions will earn significant trust of students, academicians, industry and governments.

SMRITI ZUBIN IRANI

v

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download