Monday, May 26, 2025

University performance - Excel Tool

 Absolutely! Here’s a step-by-step guide to create an Excel data entry form with dependent dropdowns for stakeholder feedback — all on a single sheet.


Step 1: Prepare Your Data Lists

  1. Open a new Excel workbook.

  2. Create a new sheet called Lists (you can hide it later).

  3. In Lists, enter the Affiliations vertically starting from cell A2, e.g.:

A
Affiliation (header)
Students
Staff
Industry
Society
  1. Next to it, create columns for each affiliation with their respective Parameters, starting from row 2. For example:

A B C D E
Affiliation Students Staff Industry Society
Quality of Teaching Work Environment Graduate Employability Social Responsibility
Curriculum Relevance Workload & Job Satisfaction Curriculum Relevance Inclusivity
... ... ... ... ...

(Add all parameters under each affiliation column)


Step 2: Define Named Ranges

  1. Select the list of Affiliations (e.g., Lists!$A$2:$A$5), then go to Formulas > Define Name, name it Affiliations.

  2. Similarly, for each affiliation’s parameter list (e.g., Lists!$B$2:$B$11 for Students), create named ranges exactly matching the affiliation name (e.g., Students, Staff, Industry, Society).


Step 3: Setup the Data Entry Sheet

  1. Go back to your main worksheet, e.g., name it Feedback Form.

  2. In row 1, create headers:

A B C D E F
Respondent Name Affiliation Date Parameter Rating Comments/Suggestions
  1. Format the headers as bold and widen columns for clarity.


Step 4: Add Data Validation for Affiliation

  1. Select the cells in the Affiliation column where users will input data (e.g., B2:B100).

  2. Go to Data > Data Validation.

  3. Under Allow, select List.

  4. In Source, enter: =Affiliations

  5. Click OK.


Step 5: Add Dependent Dropdown for Parameters

  1. Select the cells under Parameter column where users will input data (e.g., D2:D100).

  2. Go to Data > Data Validation.

  3. Under Allow, select List.

  4. In Source, enter the formula: =INDIRECT(B2)

    • This formula makes the Parameter list depend on the value selected in Affiliation column in the same row.

  5. Click OK.

Note: For this to work properly, the affiliation names must exactly match the named ranges created in Step 2.


Step 6: Add Data Validation for Rating

  1. Select the Rating column cells (e.g., E2:E100).

  2. Go to Data > Data Validation.

  3. Under Allow, select List.

  4. Enter the source as: 1,2,3,4,5

  5. Click OK.


Step 7: Add Date Picker (Optional)

  • Excel doesn’t have a native date picker in all versions, but you can format the Date column (C2:C100) as Date:

    • Select the cells.

    • Right-click > Format Cells > Date > Choose desired format.


Step 8: Final Touches

  • Freeze the header row (View > Freeze Panes > Freeze Top Row).

  • Optionally, hide the Lists sheet to prevent accidental edits.

  • Add instructions at the top or a separate sheet for users.

  • Protect the sheet to prevent editing headers or lists if desired.


If you want, I can also provide you with sample formulas or a downloadable step-by-step checklist.

Would you like me to prepare any additional tips or example screenshots?

University Performance - Society’s perspective

 Evaluating a university from the society’s perspective involves assessing how the institution contributes to the public good, social development, ethical standards, and community engagement. Unlike stakeholders like students or industry who have direct interactions, society evaluates the broader impact of the university on equity, inclusion, innovation, values, and community welfare.


🏛️ Society-Centric Evaluation of a University

Key Parameters and Indicators

Parameter Indicators
1. Social Responsibility & Outreach - Community service programs (NSS, NCC, Unnat Bharat Abhiyan)- Rural development initiatives- Participation in local governance or disaster relief
2. Inclusivity & Accessibility - Access for marginalized groups (SC/ST/OBC, rural students)- Gender balance in admissions and staffing- Facilities for differently-abled individuals
3. Environmental Sustainability - Green campus initiatives- Energy/water conservation measures- Waste management, tree plantation drives
4. Ethics, Values & Citizenship - Courses or activities promoting ethics and civic responsibility- Observance of Constitution Day, Human Rights Day- Anti-ragging, anti-discrimination practices
5. Cultural Preservation & Promotion - Promotion of local language, arts, heritage- Folk events, traditional art competitions- Documentation and research on regional knowledge
6. Public Health & Education Contribution - Health camps, awareness campaigns (HIV, COVID, menstrual health)- Literacy drives, digital literacy for rural population
7. Research with Societal Impact - Applied research solving local/regional problems- Public policy input, open access publishing- Extension services in agriculture, environment, public health
8. Lifelong Learning Opportunities - Community classes, certificate programs for citizens- Access to MOOCs, webinars, continuing education
9. Transparency & Accountability - Public disclosure of annual reports- Compliance with UGC/NAAC/NBA/RTI guidelines- Ethical grievance redressal mechanisms
10. Reputation & Public Perception - Media coverage, social media engagement- Word-of-mouth among local population- Role in regional development and pride

📊 Sample Rating Scale (1 to 5 Likert Scale)

Parameter Sample Rating
Social Responsibility 4.5
Inclusivity & Accessibility 4.0
Environmental Sustainability 3.8
Cultural and Ethical Engagement 4.2
Overall Societal Impact 4.1

🧠 Methods to Collect Society Feedback

  1. Community Surveys

    • Gather feedback from local residents, civil society members, and NGOs

  2. Public Forums and Town Hall Meetings

    • Conduct open discussions with citizens on university outreach efforts

  3. Media and Public Sentiment Analysis

    • Monitor coverage, social media sentiment, public complaints

  4. Feedback from NGOs / Local Bodies

    • Capture third-party opinions on university involvement and reliability


🎯 Characteristics of a Society-Centric University

  • Rooted in local relevance but with a global outlook

  • Acts as a change agent in its surrounding community

  • Transparent, accountable, and committed to inclusivity

  • Bridges knowledge with action for public good

  • Encourages citizen science, outreach, and community involvement


Would you like a societal impact assessment tool, a community survey form, or a dashboard template to visualize the university’s social contributions?

Let me know how you’d like to apply this framework.

University Performance - Industry's Perspective

 Judging a university from the industry's perspective involves evaluating how well the institution prepares graduates to meet current and future workforce demands, and how actively it engages in collaboration, innovation, and knowledge transfer.

Here is a comprehensive framework of the parameters and indicators used by industry to assess a university:


🏭 Industry-Centric Evaluation of a University

Key Parameters and Indicators

Parameter Indicators
1. Graduate Employability - Job-readiness of graduates- Soft skills, technical skills, adaptability- Internships or industrial training experience
2. Curriculum Relevance - Industry-aligned courses, certifications- Up-to-date syllabus with inputs from industry experts- Emerging tech inclusion (AI, IoT, sustainability, etc.)
3. Industry Collaboration - Industry-institute MoUs- Joint seminars, workshops, guest lectures- Industrial visits and immersion programs
4. Internships & Placements - Quantity and quality of internship programs- Support during onboarding- University-industry interface for placements
5. Faculty-Industry Engagement - Faculty exchange, internships in industry- Participation in industry research or consultancy- Faculty training in new technologies
6. Innovation & Research Ecosystem - Joint research, funded projects- IP generation, patents- Incubation support and startup collaborations
7. Responsiveness & Flexibility - Willingness to adapt curriculum on industry feedback- Speed of collaboration (approvals, action plans)- Outcome focus in MoUs
8. Entrepreneurship Support - Incubators, accelerators, startup cells- Availability of seed funding or mentoring- Hackathons, startup challenges with industry involvement
9. Alumni in Industry - Alumni holding key industry roles- Industry perception of graduates- Alumni-institution engagement in placements or advisory roles
10. Knowledge Transfer & Consultancy - Consultancy services to industry- Labs and centers of excellence accessible to industry- Tech transfer readiness

📊 Sample Rating Scale (1 to 5)

Parameter Sample Score
Graduate Employability 4.2
Curriculum Alignment 4.0
Internship Collaboration 3.8
Research & Innovation Engagement 3.6
Responsiveness & Professionalism 4.1
Overall Industry Satisfaction 4.0

🧠 Data Collection Methods from Industry

  1. Employer Surveys / Recruiter Feedback Forms

    • Gather feedback post-placement or internship

    • Use Likert scales and open-ended questions

  2. Advisory Board Inputs

    • Seek insights from industry advisory board members

  3. Alumni Feedback in Industry

    • Ask alumni now in leadership roles for insight on training gaps

  4. Consultancy Project Reviews

    • Industry feedback on outcomes and delivery quality

  5. Participation in Curriculum Design

    • Minutes and feedback from BoS, Academic Council, or IQAC where industry is involved


🎯 Characteristics of a University Valued by Industry

  • Proactive engagement in talent and tech development

  • Outcome-focused training aligned with real-world needs

  • Agile and responsive to feedback and collaboration

  • Facilitator of innovation through research and entrepreneurship

  • Nurtures a strong alumni network that strengthens industry ties


Would you like me to:

  • Create a Google Form or Excel-based Industry Feedback Tool?

  • Draft a sample MoU structure between university and industry?

  • Build a dashboard template to track industry satisfaction KPIs?

Let me know your needs!

University Performance - Staff's Perspective

 Judging a university from the staff’s point of view—especially teaching and non-teaching personnel—requires assessing how well the institution supports their professional development, working environment, recognition, and participation in governance.

Below is a comprehensive framework outlining the key parameters and indicators to evaluate a university from the staff perspective:


🧑‍🏫 Staff-Centric Evaluation of a University

Key Parameters and Indicators

Parameter Indicators
1. Work Environment & Culture - Respectful and inclusive work culture- Collegiality and team spirit- Fair HR practices
2. Workload & Job Satisfaction - Balanced teaching, research, and admin responsibilities- Realistic timelines and expectations
3. Opportunities for Growth - Availability of Faculty Development Programs (FDPs)- Support for higher studies or research- Sabbaticals and study leave policies
4. Recognition & Rewards - Timely promotions- Performance-based incentives- Awards for excellence in teaching/research/service
5. Participation in Governance - Inclusion in Academic Council, IQAC, BOS, etc.- Transparency in decision-making- Ability to contribute ideas or feedback
6. Infrastructure & Resources - Access to computers, labs, smart classrooms- Research labs, journal subscriptions, funding- Adequate office space, internet
7. Administrative Support - Efficiency of supporting departments- Responsiveness to needs (maintenance, HR, IT)- Clear administrative processes
8. Communication & Transparency - Regular faculty meetings and circulars- Access to policy documents- Open-door policies of leadership
9. Work-Life Balance - Reasonable working hours and leave policies- Child care, transport, canteen facilities
10. Staff Welfare & Safety - Medical care and insurance- Safety at workplace- Mental health and counseling support
11. Involvement in Innovation - Encouragement to participate in research, patents, startups- Institutional support for consultancy & projects

📊 Sample Rating Scale for Staff Feedback (1 to 5 Likert Scale)

Parameter Rating (Example)
Work Culture 4.2
Professional Development 3.8
Administrative Support 4.0
Recognition & Promotion 3.6
Communication & Transparency 4.1
Overall Staff Satisfaction 4.0

🧠 Data Collection Methods

  1. Anonymous Staff Surveys
    → Rating-scale questions + open-ended suggestions

  2. Periodic One-on-One Feedback
    → Especially helpful during performance appraisals

  3. Exit Interviews
    → Learn why staff leave, and how to improve retention

  4. Staff Meetings & Suggestion Systems
    → Empower participation and transparency


🎯 Characteristics of a Staff-Centric University

  • Encourages faculty autonomy and innovation

  • Offers fair opportunities for growth and promotion

  • Ensures workplace dignity and safety

  • Builds a supportive ecosystem for teaching and research

  • Practices shared governance and active listening


Would you like to generate a Google Form template for staff feedback or an Excel dashboard to monitor satisfaction trends semester-wise?

University Performance - Student's Perspective

 Judging a university from the student’s point of view involves assessing how well the institution meets their academic, career, and personal development needs. The evaluation should be student-centered, focusing on parameters that impact their learning, experience, and success.


🎓 Student-Centric Evaluation of a University

Key Parameters and Indicators

Parameter Indicators
1. Academic Quality - Faculty expertise and engagement- Innovative pedagogy (e.g., active learning, flipped classrooms)- Curriculum relevance and flexibility
2. Curriculum Relevance - Alignment with industry trends- Inclusion of emerging technologies/skills- Choice-based credit system (CBCS)
3. Assessment & Feedback - Fair and timely evaluations- Continuous internal assessment (CIA)- Constructive feedback from faculty
4. Learning Resources - Availability of updated textbooks, journals, and e-resources- Access to modern labs and ICT tools- Wi-Fi and digital infrastructure
5. Faculty Interaction & Support - Approachability and mentoring by faculty- Office hours or student support mechanisms
6. Career Support - Placement preparation & soft skills training- Internship opportunities- Career counseling and job fairs
7. Infrastructure & Facilities - Classrooms, hostels, sports, health centers- Accessibility and cleanliness- Facilities for differently-abled students
8. Student Voice & e-Governance - Feedback mechanisms on courses and teaching- Representation in committees (e.g., IQAC, Student Council)
9. Campus Safety & Well-being - Anti-ragging and grievance redressal mechanisms- Counseling and mental health support- Gender sensitization initiatives
10. Co-curricular & Extra-curricular - Clubs, events, NSS/NCC, cultural and sports activities- Opportunities for leadership and public speaking
11. Innovation & Entrepreneurship - Incubation centers, hackathons, startup support- Exposure to patents, research projects
12. Global Exposure - MoUs with international universities- Student exchange programs, foreign language learning

📊 Sample Rating Scale for Students (1 to 5 Likert Scale)

Parameter Rating (Example)
Academic Quality 4.5
Curriculum Relevance 4.2
Learning Resources 4.0
Career Support 3.8
Campus Safety 4.6
Overall Satisfaction 4.3

🧠 Student-Centric Evaluation Methodology

  1. Quantitative Surveys – Use Google Forms with rating scales.

  2. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) – Deep dive into issues via student council or clubs.

  3. Exit Surveys – Final-year students reflect on their experience.

  4. Suggestion Boxes / Digital Feedback Tools – Ongoing anonymous input.

  5. Dashboard Analysis – Track trends semester by semester.


🎯 What Makes a University Truly Student-Centric?

  • Learner-first policy in curriculum and support services

  • Holistic growth: intellectual, emotional, professional

  • Feedback responsiveness: student voices shape decisions

  • Future-ready approach: ensures employability, innovation, and values


Would you like a Google Form or dashboard template specifically designed to evaluate these student parameters?

University Performance

 Judging a university from the perspective of its stakeholders—students, staff, parents, and industry—requires a balanced, evidence-based evaluation based on the specific expectations, experiences, and outcomes relevant to each group.

Below is a comprehensive framework that summarizes how each stakeholder evaluates the university, followed by key criteria and a scoring/rating approach.


🎯 Stakeholder-Based University Evaluation Framework

Stakeholder Core Expectations Key Evaluation Criteria Indicators
Students Quality education, career readiness, support Teaching, curriculum, resources, placements, well-being Course quality, faculty interaction, internships, digital access, safety
Staff Work culture, recognition, growth opportunities Resources, HR policies, leadership, development Training access, decision inclusion, facilities, satisfaction
Parents Student growth, safety, transparency Academic value, campus security, communication Feedback channels, student monitoring, responsiveness
Industry Employable graduates, collaboration Curriculum relevance, skillset, engagement Job-readiness, collaboration frequency, R&D interaction

🔍 Evaluation Criteria by Stakeholder

🧑‍🎓 1. Students

  • Teaching Quality: Faculty expertise, interactive pedagogy

  • Curriculum Relevance: Alignment with industry needs

  • Resources: Labs, digital tools, library

  • Placement/Internships: Access, quality, support

  • Campus Life & Support: Counseling, safety, inclusivity

👩‍🏫 2. Staff

  • Professional Development: Workshops, conferences

  • Work Culture: Transparency, fairness, communication

  • Support Systems: Admin support, workload balance

  • Recognition: Career progression, rewards

👨‍👩‍👧 3. Parents

  • Academic Rigor: Curriculum quality, academic results

  • Student Welfare: Hostel, security, grievance redressal

  • Engagement: Open houses, newsletters, portals

  • Value for Money: ROI in terms of growth and jobs

🏭 4. Industry

  • Graduate Readiness: Skills, attitude, communication

  • Collaboration: Advisory boards, joint projects, internships

  • Curriculum Input: Ability to influence programs

  • University Responsiveness: MOU handling, innovation hubs


📊 Sample Scoring Method (Out of 5 for Each Domain)

Domain Students Staff Parents Industry
Curriculum Relevance 4.2 4.0 4.1 3.5
Teaching Quality 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.8
Industry Readiness 3.9 3.7 3.8 4.1
Communication 4.0 3.9 4.2 3.6
Support Systems 4.3 4.0 4.5 -
Engagement 4.1 3.8 4.3 3.7

Overall Composite Rating: 4.0 / 5


✅ How to Use This Evaluation

  1. Collect stakeholder feedback using structured Google Forms (like the one we've prepared).

  2. Analyze responses: Score each question by stakeholder group.

  3. Visualize findings using radar charts or heatmaps.

  4. Benchmark improvement over time via periodic surveys (every 6 or 12 months).

  5. Close the loop by using findings to inform:

    • Academic Council reviews

    • Quality Assurance Cell reports

    • NAAC/NBA/SAR submissions


Would you like help building a dashboard or report to consolidate responses automatically (using Google Sheets or Excel)?

Sunday, May 25, 2025

#2 Competency mapping - Job roles & Skills Required as on May 2025

 Based on current job listings on Naukri.com and industry insights, here are the top in-demand job roles and skills in Chennai as of May 2025:


🔝 Top In-Demand Job Roles in Chennai

  1. Software Developers & Engineers

    • Specializations: Full Stack, Backend, Frontend, Mobile App Development

    • Languages & Frameworks: Java, Python, JavaScript, React, Angular, Node.js

    • Cloud Platforms: AWS, Azure, Google Cloud

  2. Data Analysts & Data Scientists

    • Skills: SQL, Python, R, Tableau, Power BI, Machine Learning

    • Tools: Hadoop, Spark, TensorFlow

  3. Cybersecurity Professionals

    • Roles: Security Analyst, Security Architect, Penetration Tester

    • Skills: Network Security, Ethical Hacking, Risk Assessment(arXiv, Naukri)

  4. Digital Marketing Specialists

    • Focus Areas: SEO, SEM, Social Media Marketing, Content Strategy

    • Tools: Google Analytics, AdWords, HubSpot

  5. Project & Product Managers

    • Methodologies: Agile, Scrum, Kanban

    • Certifications: PMP, PRINCE2, Certified ScrumMaster

  6. Business Analysts

    • Skills: Requirement Gathering, Process Modeling, Stakeholder Management

    • Tools: Microsoft Excel, Visio, JIRA(Naukri, Naukri)

  7. Customer Support Executives (BPO/KPO)

    • Languages: English, Hindi, Regional Languages

    • Skills: Communication, Problem-Solving, CRM Tools(arXiv)

  8. Human Resources Professionals

    • Roles: Talent Acquisition, HR Generalist, HRBP

    • Skills: Recruitment, Employee Engagement, HRIS Systems

  9. Finance & Accounting Professionals

    • Roles: Accountants, Financial Analysts, Auditors

    • Skills: Tally, SAP, Financial Modeling

  10. Sales & Business Development Executives

    • Industries: IT Services, Real Estate, FMCG

    • Skills: Lead Generation, Negotiation, CRM Tools


🛠️ Top In-Demand Skills

  • Technical Skills:

    • Programming Languages: Java, Python, JavaScript

    • Data Analysis Tools: SQL, Excel, Tableau

    • Cloud Platforms: AWS, Azure

    • Cybersecurity Tools: Firewalls, SIEM, IDS/IPS(Wikipedia)

  • Soft Skills:

    • Communication and Interpersonal Skills

    • Problem-Solving and Analytical Thinking

    • Adaptability and Flexibility

    • Team Collaboration(Naukri, Naukri)

  • Certifications:

    • AWS Certified Solutions Architect

    • Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP)

    • Google Analytics Individual Qualification (GAIQ)

    • Project Management Professional (PMP)(Naukri)


For a comprehensive list of current job openings in Chennai, you can visit Naukri.com's Chennai Jobs.(Naukri)

#1 Competency Mapping

 Competency Mapping is the process of identifying the key competencies (skills, knowledge, behavior, and attitudes) required to perform a job effectively. It helps align individual performance with organizational goals.


🔍 Definition:

Competency Mapping is the process of identifying the specific competencies that are essential for success in a given job or role, and evaluating whether individuals possess those competencies.


✅ Purpose:

  • Match people to the right roles

  • Identify training needs

  • Improve recruitment and selection

  • Plan career development

  • Support performance appraisal systems


🧩 Types of Competencies:

Type Description
Core Competencies Required across the organization (e.g., teamwork, communication)
Functional Competencies Specific to a department/role (e.g., coding for IT)
Behavioral Competencies Attitude, ethics, interpersonal skills
Leadership Competencies Vision, decision-making, strategic thinking

⚙️ Steps to Achieve Competency Mapping:

  1. Identify Roles and Responsibilities

    • List job titles and key tasks

  2. Define Required Competencies

    • Use tools like job analysis, interviews, expert input

  3. Create a Competency Framework

    • Document required competencies and performance levels

  4. Assess Current Competencies

    • Use self-assessment, 360-degree feedback, testing, observations

  5. Gap Analysis

    • Identify the difference between required and existing competencies

  6. Training and Development

    • Design learning programs to bridge gaps

  7. Integrate with HR Systems

    • Use for recruitment, appraisal, promotion, and succession planning


🛠️ Tools/Methods Used:

  • Job Analysis

  • Behavioral Event Interviews (BEI)

  • Assessment Centers

  • Psychometric Tests

  • 360-degree Feedback


📊 Example (Software Developer):

Competency Required Level Existing Level Gap
Coding Proficiency High Medium Yes
Communication Skills Medium High No
Problem Solving High High No
Team Collaboration Medium Low Yes

Competency Mapping Matrix or Google Sheet format:

Here’s a Competency Mapping Matrix Template you can directly use or copy into a Google Sheet. It is structured for easy assessment, analysis, and training planning.


📊 Competency Mapping Matrix Template

S.No Employee Name Role Competency Category Specific Competency Required Level (1–5) Current Level (1–5) Gap (Y/N) Training Needed Remarks
1 John Doe Software Engineer Technical Programming (Python) 5 3 Y Yes Intermediate level
2 John Doe Software Engineer Behavioral Communication 4 4 N No Meets expectations
3 Jane Smith Project Manager Leadership Strategic Thinking 5 4 Y Yes Coaching needed
4 Jane Smith Project Manager Functional Project Planning 5 5 N No Excellent
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

✅ Column Guide:

  • Competency Category: Technical / Functional / Behavioral / Leadership

  • Required Level: Based on role expectation (scale of 1 to 5)

  • Current Level: Assessed through feedback, tests, or self-evaluation

  • Gap: Auto-calculate if Required Level > Current Level

  • Training Needed: "Yes" if there's a gap


📎 Google Sheets Tip:

To auto-calculate the "Gap" column, use this formula in H2:

=IF(F2>G2,"Y","N")

For conditional formatting:

  • Highlight rows in red where gap = "Y"

  • Highlight rows in green where gap = "N"


  •  

Saturday, May 24, 2025

#10 University Parameters [Modified and Suggested]

Here is a well-organized list of University Performance Indicators, structured according to the revised framework you approved (600 marks, TLR = 100). These indicators can be used in academic audits, quality assessment, ranking, or institutional benchmarking.


University Performance Indicators (Based on Revised Framework)

  • 1. Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR) – 100 Marks

    Code Sub-Category Indicator Description Score
    TLR-1 1(a) Faculty–Student Ratio with Permanent Faculty Focus 20
    TLR-2 1(b) % of Faculty with PhD and Domain Experience 25
    TLR-3 1(c) Quality & Availability of Library and Laboratory Facilities 20
    TLR-4 1(d) Use of LMS and ICT in Classrooms 15
    TLR-5 1(d) Availability of Sports & Extra-Curricular Infrastructure 10
    TLR-6 1(e) Academic Staff Training and Pedagogical Innovation 10
    Subtotal 100

    2. Research, Innovation & Intellectual Capital (RIIC) – 90 Marks

    Code Sub-Category Indicator Description Score
    RIIC-1 2(a) Publications in Scopus/Web of Science 20
    RIIC-2 2(a) Citations per Publication / H-index 10
    RIIC-3 2(b) Number of Patents Filed/Granted 15
    RIIC-4 2(b) Number of Active Startups from Campus 15
    RIIC-5 2(c) Interdisciplinary/Industry Collaborative Projects 15
    RIIC-6 2(d) MOOCs, GitHub Projects, and Open Educational Resources Published 15
    Subtotal 90

    3. Student Outcome & Employability (SOE) – 90 Marks

    Code Sub-Category Indicator Description Score
    SOE-1 3(a) Final Year Pass Percentage 10
    SOE-2 3(a) University Rank Holders 15
    SOE-3 3(b) Placement Percentage 15
    SOE-4 3(b) Internship Participation Rate 15
    SOE-5 3(c) OBE Course Attainment Scores 15
    SOE-6 3(d) Students Clearing GATE/NET/CAT/Other Exams 10
    SOE-7 3(d) Students Admitted to Higher Education (PG/Ph.D.) 10
    Subtotal 90

    ✅ Would you like this full version exported into Excel or PDF format for sharing with faculty or students?4. Inclusivity, Accessibility & Outreach (IAO) – 90 Marks

    Code Sub-Category Indicator Description Score
    IAO-1 4(a) % of Students from Other States/Countries 15
    IAO-2 4(a) Gender Diversity Ratio (Male/Female/Other) 15
    IAO-3 4(b) Scholarships to Economically Disadvantaged Students 15
    IAO-4 4(b) Special Facilities for Differently-Abled Students 15
    IAO-5 4(c) Number of Outreach/MOOCs/Lifelong Learning Programs Conducted 15
    IAO-6 4(d) Alumni Participation in Institutional Development 15
    Subtotal
    • 90

    5. Perception & Trust Index (PTI) – 90 Marks

    Code Sub-Category Indicator Description Score
    PTI-1 5(a) Peer Institution & Employer Survey Scores 25
    PTI-2 5(b) Student Feedback on Curriculum, Teaching & Campus 20
    PTI-3 5(c) Application to Seat Ratio 15
    PTI-4 5(c) Student Retention Rate (First to Final Year) 15
    PTI-5 5(d) Data Accuracy & Transparency in Public Disclosures 15
    Subtotal 90

    6. Future-Ready Technology Integration (FRTI) – 140 Marks

    Code Sub-Category Indicator Description Score
    FRTI-1 6(a) Number of AI-related Research Projects or Labs 20
    FRTI-2 6(a) AI in Curriculum & Teaching (e.g., GenAI use, tools) 15
    FRTI-3 6(b) Quantum Computing Research Collaborations 15
    FRTI-4 6(c) EV/Green Mobility Labs and Projects 20
    FRTI-5 6(c) Renewable Energy Installations (Solar, Smart Grid) 15
    FRTI-6 6(d) LMS Usage & Analytics Integration 15
    FRTI-7 6(d) Digital Course Materials with AI Support 10
    FRTI-8 6(e) Innovation Hubs with Multi-domain Projects (e.g., AI + Health, AI + AgriTech) 15
    FRTI-9 6(e) Funding from Emerging Tech Projects (Govt/Industry) 15
    Subtotal 140

    It enables data-driven evaluation and comparative benchmarking.


#9 Additional Parameters Suggested

Here’s an integrated framework including the new Future-Ready Technology Integration (FRTI) category, with a revised weight distribution for balanced evaluation.


Revised University Ranking Framework with Future Technologies

Category Sub-Parameter Code Max Score Notes
1. Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR) Faculty Quality, Pedagogy, Labs 1 70 Includes OBE & digital learning
Sports & Extra-curricular Activities 1(d) 10
Subtotal TLR 80
2. Research, Innovation & Intellectual Capital (RIIC) Research Quality & Output 2(a) 30 Publications, citations
Innovation Outputs (Patents, Startups) 2(b) 30 IPR, start-up reports
Interdisciplinary & Industry Collaboration 2(c) 20 MoUs, projects
Open Knowledge Contribution (MOOCs, OERs) 2(d) 20 Digital content contributions
Subtotal RIIC 100
3. Student Outcome & Employability (SOE) Exam Results & Pass Quality 3(a) 25 Exam board reports
Placement & Internship 3(b) 30 T&P cell data
OBE-based Course Outcome Mapping 3(c) 30 Attainment reports
Competitive Exams & Higher Studies 3(d) 15 Proof from students
Subtotal SOE 100
4. Inclusivity, Accessibility & Outreach (IAO) Diversity Index 4(a) 25 Admission data
Facilities for Disadvantaged Groups 4(b) 25 Audit reports
Outreach, MOOCs & Lifelong Learning 4(c) 25 Extension records
Alumni & Community Engagement 4(d) 25 Alumni office data
Subtotal IAO 100
5. Perception & Trust Index (PTI) Peer & Employer Perception 5(a) 30 Survey results
Student Feedback 5(b) 30 Digital feedback
Application-Seat Ratio & Retention 5(c) 20 Admission data
Transparency & Data Integrity 5(d) 20 Third-party verification
Subtotal PTI 100
6. Future-Ready Technology Integration (FRTI) AI Research & Applications 6(a) 20 Publications, projects
Quantum Computing Research 6(b) 15 Research, collaborations
EV & Renewable Energy Initiatives 6(c) 15 Labs, patents, startups
Smart Campus & LMS Adoption 6(d) 20 Digital tools, AI-LMS usage
Interdisciplinary Innovation Hubs 6(e) 30 Centres combining tech domains
Subtotal FRTI 100

Revised Weight Distribution (Total 600 Marks)

Category Weight (Marks) Weight (%)
Teaching, Learning & Resources 80 13.3%
Research, Innovation & Intellectual Capital 100 16.7%
Student Outcome & Employability 100 16.7%
Inclusivity, Accessibility & Outreach 100 16.7%
Perception & Trust Index 100 16.7%
Future-Ready Technology Integration 100 16.7%
Total 600 100%

Audit Template Notes:

  • Each parameter should have clear evidence sources (reports, digital data, surveys).

  • FRTI parameters require documentation on technology projects, research outputs, labs, and LMS analytics.

  • Weight reduction was done mostly in TLR to accommodate FRTI while keeping the balance.

  • This framework ensures innovation & technology readiness without compromising core academic quality and inclusivity.


Modifications/Corrections:

Certainly! To keep Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR) at 100 marks while maintaining the total at 600, I'll slightly adjust weights in other categories proportionally.


Revised Weight Distribution with TLR = 100 Marks

Category Weight (Marks) Weight (%)
1. Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR) 100 16.7%
2. Research, Innovation & Intellectual Capital (RIIC) 90 15.0%
3. Student Outcome & Employability (SOE) 90 15.0%
4. Inclusivity, Accessibility & Outreach (IAO) 90 15.0%
5. Perception & Trust Index (PTI) 90 15.0%
6. Future-Ready Technology Integration (FRTI) 140 23.3%
Total 600 100%

Adjusted Sub-parameters for TLR (Total 100 Marks)

Sub-Parameter Code Max Score
Faculty Quality & Pedagogy (including OBE & digital learning) 1(a) 60
Library, Laboratory & Digital Resources 1(b) 30
Sports & Extra-curricular Activities 1(c) 10
Total TLR 100

Explanation:

  • TLR is restored to 100 marks with focus on faculty, pedagogy, and infrastructure.

  • RIIC, SOE, IAO, and PTI slightly reduced but still robust at 90 each.

  • FRTI given a higher weight (140) to emphasize future technologies.

  • Total remains 600 marks, keeping a balanced and comprehensive evaluation.



#8 Comparison for Frameworks

summarized comparison table of proposed university ranking framework versus major international frameworks like QS, THE (Times Higher Education), and NIRF (India’s ranking system) — designed for students or general audiences:


Parameter Category Proposed Framework QS Ranking THE Ranking NIRF (India)
Teaching & Learning Faculty quality, pedagogy, student outcomes (SOE) Academic reputation, faculty/student ratio, citations per faculty Teaching environment, staff-to-student ratio, teaching reputation Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR) including faculty, labs
Research & Innovation Research quality, patents, startups, interdisciplinary projects (RIIC) Research reputation, citations per faculty Research volume, income, reputation Research & Professional Practice (RPP), publications, IPR
Student Outcome & Employability Exam results, placements, OBE outcomes, higher studies (SOE) Graduate employability, employer reputation Industry income, knowledge transfer Graduation Outcome (GO), public exams, placements
Inclusivity & Outreach Diversity, facilities for disadvantaged, alumni engagement (IAO) International faculty & students, diversity International outlook, diversity of staff/students Outreach & Inclusivity (OI), diversity & disadvantaged groups
Perception & Trust Peer rating, student feedback, transparency (PTI) Academic & employer reputation surveys Reputation surveys, peer review Perception (PR) – peer rating & application ratio

Key Points:

  • Proposed Framework puts extra focus on pedagogy, OBE-based assessment, and innovation outputs (startups, MOOCs).

  • QS and THE emphasize global reputation and citations, with strong weight on research impact.

  • NIRF more bias towards research and perception, tailored for Indian context with some drawbacks.

  • Proposed model SIRF aims to reduce bias by adding transparency, student feedback, and data integrity explicitly.


Methodology

 

Greater China Rankings
CriterionIndicatorWeight
EducationPercentage of graduate students5%
Percentage of non-local students5%
Ratio of academic staff to students5%
Doctoral degrees awarded10%
Alumni as Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists10%
ResearchAnnual research income5%
Nature & Science Papers10%
SCIE & SSCI papers10%
International patents10%
FacultyPercentage of academic staff with a doctoral degree5%
Staff as Nobel Laureates and Fields Medalists10%
Highly cited researchers10%
ResourcesAnnual budget5%

Methodology IN US 

  • "Alumni Salary": 20%[15]
  • "Debt": 15%[15]
  • "Return On investment": 15%[15]
  • "Graduation Rate": 15%[15]
  • "Forbes American Leaders List": 15%[15]
  • "Retention Rate": 10%[15]
  • "Academic Success": 10%[15]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparative analysis of the QS, THE, and NIRF institutional ranking methodologies in tabular form, covering their parameters, weights, scope, and criticism:


📊 Comparison of QS, THE, and NIRF Ranking Methodologies

Feature / Aspect QS World University Rankings THE (Times Higher Education) NIRF (India - National Institutional Ranking Framework)
Administered By Quacquarelli Symonds (UK) Times Higher Education (UK) Ministry of Education, Government of India
Scope Global Global National (India)
Number of Institutions Ranked ~1,500+ ~1,800+ ~1,000+ (across various categories)
Target Audience International students, academics, policymakers Academics, universities, governments Indian students, policymakers, government
Ranking Categories Overall, Subject-wise, Regional Overall, Subject-wise, Regional Overall, University, College, Discipline-wise
(Engineering, Management, Law, Medical, etc.)

🔍 Ranking Parameters & Weightage

Parameter QS (2024) THE (2024) NIRF (2024)
Academic Reputation 30% ~30% (via Research Reputation & Teaching)
Employer Reputation 15%
Faculty/Student Ratio 10% ~4.5% (Teaching Environment) Teaching, Learning & Resources – 30%
Citations per Faculty 20% 30% (Research Influence) Research & Professional Practice – 30%
International Faculty/Students 5% + 5% 7.5% (international outlook)
Research Volume/Income 30% (Research Quality & Income) Research – 30%
Teaching Reputation / Surveys 15% (Teaching Environment)
Industry Income / Innovation 2.5% Graduation Outcomes – 20%
Graduate Outcomes / Employability 5% Outreach & Inclusivity – 10%
Inclusivity / Diversity Outreach & Inclusivity – 10%

🧭 Approach & Data Sources

Factor QS THE NIRF
Data Sources Academic & employer surveys, Scopus Surveys, bibliometrics (Elsevier), financials Self-submitted data + bibliometrics + surveys
Survey Component High (50% combined) Medium (~33%) Low – mostly objective data
Bibliometric Data Source Scopus Scopus (Elsevier) Scopus (through INFLIBNET, Clarivate for some)
Self-Reported Data Limited Some Extensive (submitted by institutions)

⚖️ Criticisms & Limitations

Criticism QS THE NIRF
Reputation-heavy bias Overemphasis on perception surveys Heavy reliance on subjective reputation Lacks international comparison
Language bias English-language journal bias Similar bias via Scopus Mostly India-centric journals considered
Data transparency Survey-based, some opacity in calculations Expensive to participate, opaque methods Transparent with public methodology
Global vs. Local relevance May not suit Indian context Geared for global elite institutions Custom-fit for Indian HEIs
Underrepresentation Developing nations underrepresented Costly participation for low-budget HEIs Smaller colleges might be excluded

📌 Summary of Key Differences

Dimension QS THE NIRF
Focus Reputation + Research Research + Teaching Teaching + Research + Outreach + Inclusivity
Global Comparability Yes Yes No
Inclusion of Diversity Partially (Intl. students) Yes (Intl. collaboration) Yes (Gender, Region, Category representation)
Useful for Indian Policy Indirectly Indirectly Directly

📝 Conclusion

  • QS focuses heavily on academic and employer reputation, useful for branding and attracting international students.

  • THE combines research quality, teaching environment, and citations, making it ideal for comprehensive research-based comparisons.

  • NIRF emphasizes transparency, employability, and inclusivity, making it tailored for Indian educational policy and benchmarking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a refined and integrated Institutional Ranking Mechanism that combines the best features of QS, THE, and NIRF frameworks, adapted for national + global relevance with fairness, inclusivity, research excellence, and employability in mind.


🌐 Unified Institutional Ranking Framework (UIRF)

Aspect Details
Purpose Holistic and fair evaluation of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) with global-local relevance
Audience Students, Employers, Policymakers, Funding Agencies, International Partners
Scope National institutions with benchmarking capability against international standards
Institutions Ranked All universities, colleges, research institutions, standalone PG institutions, etc.

🧱 Structure of the Ranking Framework

Dimension Weight (%) Parameters Metric / Matrix Data Source
1. Academic Excellence 25% - Peer Academic Reputation- Faculty Credentials- Teaching Quality - Academic survey (5-year average)- % faculty with PhDs- Student Satisfaction Index (from structured feedback) Surveys, Faculty Database, Internal QA cells
2. Research Performance 25% - Research Publications- Citations per Paper- h-index- Funded Projects- Patents Filed - Scopus/Elsevier data- Project count/funding (per faculty)- Patent database (INPI)- Average impact factor Scopus, INFLIBNET, Institutional R&D Cell
3. Graduate Outcomes 20% - Placement Rate- Median Salary- Higher Studies & Civil Service Entry Rate - % of eligible students placed- Median CTC (per program)- % pursuing PG/research/government services Institution-reported + Audit, Alumni Tracker
4. Inclusivity & Outreach 10% - Gender, Socioeconomic Diversity- Scholarships- Regional Representation - % of female, SC/ST/OBC, rural students- % of students receiving scholarships- % of students from low-income/aspirational districts Institution MIS, National Scholarship Portal
5. Internationalization 10% - International Faculty- Intl. Student Ratio- MoUs/Exchange Programs - % international faculty/students- No. of international collaborations- Joint publications AIU, UGC, QS Data, Institutional Records
6. Industry & Innovation 10% - Industry Collaboration- Startups Incubated- IPR/Technology Transfer - Industry-funded projects- Startups incubated under EDCs- Patents licensed or commercialized Incubation Centers, MSME/Startup India Data

📐 Key Metrics Matrix

Metric Indicator Type Scoring Approach
Reputation (Academic, Employer) Perception-Based Weighted Survey (Normalized with baseline mean)
Faculty Quality Objective % with PhD + Teacher-Student Ratio (standardized scale)
Citations / Research Volume Objective Field-normalized citations + average IF (Scopus/Web of Science)
Teaching Outcomes Survey + Objective Feedback score + program pass rate
Graduate Employability Objective Median CTC, % placed, % in higher education (weighted)
Diversity / Access Objective Proportional index normalized by state/regional average
Global Collaboration Objective No. of MoUs, intl. co-pubs, visiting faculty, exchange students
Industry Engagement Objective Startup count + tech transfer revenue + industry projects (normalized)

📊 Sample Normalized Score Table (Example)

Dimension Raw Value (per Institution) Normalized (0-100)
Academic Reputation 68% 81
Faculty PhD % 72% 78
Citations per Paper 3.2 65
Median CTC (LPA) ₹6.5 LPA 70
Female Student % 48% 80
Patents Commercialized 12 85

Final Score = Weighted sum of all normalized indicators.


⚙️ Data Collection & Auditing

Step Details
Data Submission Through verified online portal (like NIRF portal or NAAC SSR portal)
Survey Collection Structured surveys to Academics, Employers, Students
Third-Party Data Linkage Integration with Scopus, INFLIBNET, MSME, MoE, UGC APIs
Validation/Auditing Independent audit body + data sampling + outlier detection

📈 Advantages of UIRF Model

✅ Combines global visibility (QS/THE) with local sensitivity (NIRF)
✅ Balances subjectivity (reputation) and objectivity (data)
✅ Promotes innovation, industry relevance, and social equity
✅ Scalable for state-level (e.g. TN-SIRF) or national-level deployment
✅ Allows discipline-wise, category-wise, and tiered ranking outputs


Would you like a custom dashboard or tool (in Excel or PHP/MySQL) to calculate UIRF scores for your institutions?

#7 Revised Parameters and Metrics for Universities

In NIRF, there are some drawbacks and limitations that can affect fairness and accuracy.

We may propose a Revised Framework that enhances fairness, transparency, innovation, competency, and inclusivity, while aligning with Outcome-Based Education (OBE). This model addresses previous drawbacks, removes biases, and adds modern metrics relevant to employability, pedagogy, and learning outcomes.


Revised Part – I Parameters and Metrics for Universities


1. Teaching, Learning, Pedagogy & Resources (TLPR) – 100 Marks

Code Parameter Marks Revised Focus
1(a) Faculty–Student Ratio with Full-Time Faculty (FSR) 15 Audit through biometric/AI tracking to prevent manipulation.
1(b) Faculty Qualification, Industry Experience & Pedagogy (FQE-P) 25 Include certifications, teaching innovation, blended learning.
1(c) Learning Resources & Digital Infrastructure (LRI) 30 Includes access to e-learning tools, LMS, open resources, smart classrooms.
1(d) Competency-Based Course Delivery (CCBD) 20 Mapped to course outcomes (COs) and program outcomes (POs) via OBE.
1(e) Sports, Cultural & Wellness Facilities (SCWF) 10 Weighted based on student feedback, not just physical facilities.

2. Research, Innovation, and Intellectual Capital (RIIC) – 100 Marks

Code Parameter Marks Revised Focus
2(a) Research Quality (Publication + Citations Normalized) 30 Weighted by impact factor, H-index, citation per faculty.
2(b) Innovation Outputs (Patents + Startups + Funding) 30 Commercialization, incubation success, societal impact.
2(c) Interdisciplinary and Industry Collaboration (IIC) 20 Joint projects, MoUs, consultancy, and joint courses.
2(d) Open Knowledge Contribution (OKC) 20 Contributions to open-source, MOOCs, OER, GitHub, etc.

3. Student Outcome & Employability (SOE) – 100 Marks

Code Parameter Marks Revised Focus
3(a) Graduate Examination and Pass Quality (GEPQ) 25 With Bloom’s taxonomy alignment and skill mastery.
3(b) Employability, Internships & Start-up Support (EIS) 30 Median salary, placement %, startup funding received.
3(c) Outcome-Based Education Score (OBE-S) 30 Mapping COs/POs using OBE rubric and feedback loop.
3(d) Higher Education and Competitive Exams (HECE) 15 GATE, NET, CAT, GRE, Civil Services, etc.

4. Inclusivity, Accessibility and Outreach (IAO) – 100 Marks

Code Parameter Marks Revised Focus
4(a) Regional, Gender and Social Diversity Index (RGSDI) 25 Calculated through weighted equity formula.
4(b) Support System for Disadvantaged & Differently Abled (SS-DDA) 25 Quality of support, scholarships, assistive tech, not just numbers.
4(c) Outreach Education, MOOCs and Lifelong Learning (OEM) 25 Number and effectiveness of continuing education programs.
4(d) Alumni and Community Engagement (ACE) 25 Alumni involvement, social impact projects, mentoring.

5. Perception & Trust Index (PTI) – 100 Marks

Code Parameter Marks Revised Focus
5(a) Peer & Industry Perception (PIP) 30 Employer surveys, recruiter ratings, MoU strength.
5(b) Student Satisfaction and Feedback System (SSF) 30 Direct student input on courses, teachers, campus.
5(c) Application-to-Seat Ratio + Retention Rate (ASRR) 20 Reflects desirability and satisfaction.
5(d) Transparency and Data Integrity Score (TDIS) 20 Based on third-party verified data, audit logs.

Key Enhancements Over Original System

Area Old Framework Revised Framework
Bias Removal Passive data from institutions Verified + AI-audited + feedback-driven
Innovation Minimal weight (IPR only) Weighted innovation + startup + collaboration
Pedagogy Ignored Included via FQE-P and OBE metrics
OBE & Competency Mapping Absent Central to scoring (mapped via rubrics & evidence)
Student-Centered Weak perception metric Detailed student satisfaction and employability
Transparency Self-reported Audit + AI tracking + transparency score

Revised Part - II - Weight Redistribution Table and Scoring Sheet Template

Here is a Weight Redistribution Table and Scoring Sheet Template for implementing the revised university ranking parameters in an academic audit. This format ensures alignment with Outcome-Based Education (OBE), transparency, and quality assurance.


Weight Redistribution Table (Summary)

Main Parameter Sub-Parameter Code Weight (Marks)
1. Teaching, Learning, Pedagogy & Resources (TLPR) Faculty–Student Ratio (FSR) 1(a) 15
Faculty Qualification, Industry Experience & Pedagogy (FQE-P) 1(b) 25
Learning & Digital Infrastructure (LRI) 1(c) 30
Competency-Based Course Delivery (CCBD - OBE) 1(d) 20
Sports, Cultural & Wellness Facilities (SCWF) 1(e) 10
Subtotal 100



2. Research, Innovation & Intellectual Capital (RIIC)

Main Category Sub-Category Code Weight (Marks)
Research, Innovation & Intellectual Capital (RIIC) Research Quality (RQ) 2(a) 30
Innovation Outputs (IPR + Startups) 2(b) 30
Interdisciplinary & Industry Collaboration (IIC) 2(c) 20
Open Knowledge Contribution (OKC) 2(d) 20
Subtotal 100

3. Student Outcome & Employability (SOE)

Main Category Sub-Category Code Weight (Marks)
Student Outcome & Employability (SOE) Graduate Exam & Pass Quality (GEPQ) 3(a) 25
Employability, Internship & Start-up Support (EIS) 3(b) 30
OBE-based Course Outcome Mapping (OBE-S) 3(c) 30
Competitive Exams & Higher Studies (HECE) 3(d) 15
Subtotal 100

4. Inclusivity, Accessibility & Outreach (IAO)

Main Category Sub-Category Code Weight (Marks)
Inclusivity, Accessibility & Outreach (IAO) Diversity Index (RGSDI) 4(a) 25
Support System for Disadvantaged Groups (SS-DDA) 4(b) 25
Outreach, MOOCs & Lifelong Learning (OEM) 4(c) 25
Alumni & Community Engagement (ACE) 4(d) 25
Subtotal 100

5. Perception & Trust Index (PTI)

Main Category Sub-Category Code Weight (Marks)
Perception & Trust Index (PTI) Peer & Employer Perception (PIP) 5(a) 30
Student Feedback & Satisfaction (SSF) 5(b) 30
Application-Seat Ratio & Retention (ASRR) 5(c) 20
Transparency & Data Integrity (TDIS) 5(d) 20
Subtotal 100

| 🏁 GRAND TOTAL                                                                                           | | | 500 Marks |


📊 Scoring Sheet Template for Academic Audit

Parameter Sub-Parameter Code Evidence Source Score (Out of XX) Auditor's Remarks
TLPR 1(a) Faculty–Student Ratio 1(a) HR records, Biometric logs /15
TLPR 1(b) Faculty with Experience & Pedagogy 1(b) CVs, FDPs, Pedagogy training /25
TLPR 1(c) Library & Digital Resources 1(c) LMS, E-journals, ICT tools /30
TLPR 1(d) OBE-linked Course Design 1(d) CO-PO mapping sheets /20
TLPR 1(e) Student Activity Records 1(e) Sports/cultural schedules /10
Category Sub-Parameter Code Evidence Source Max Score Auditor's Remarks
RIIC Research Quality 2(a) Scopus, WoS, H-index data /30
RIIC Patents/Startups 2(b) IPR filings, startup reports /30
RIIC Interdisciplinary Projects 2(c) MoUs, project docs /20
RIIC MOOCs/GitHub/OERs 2(d) URLs, records /20
Category Sub-Parameter Code Evidence Source Max Score Auditor's Remarks
SOE Exam Results Quality 3(a) Exam board reports /25
SOE Placement & Internship 3(b) T&P Cell data /30
SOE OBE Assessment Score 3(c) Attainment reports /30
SOE Higher Study Exam Results 3(d) Proof from students /15
Category Sub-Parameter Code Evidence Source Max Score Auditor's Remarks
IAO Diversity Data 4(a) Admission database /25
IAO Facilities for Disadvantaged 4(b) Audit report, tools, policies /25
IAO Outreach/Lifelong Programs 4(c) Extension office records /25
IAO Alumni & Social Outreach 4(d) Alumni office data /25

Category Sub-Parameter Code Evidence Source Max Score Auditor's Remarks
PTI Peer/Employer Rating 5(a) Survey results /30
PTI Student Feedback 5(b) Collected digitally /30
PTI Application-Seat Ratio 5(c) Admission data /20
PTI Transparency/Integrity Score 5(d) Third-party verified data /20

🔁 Final Reporting Sheet (Summary)

Category Total Marks Marks Awarded % Score
TLPR 100 ____ ____%
RIIC 100 ____ ____%
SOE 100 ____ ____%
IAO 100 ____ ____%
PTI 100 ____ ____%
Grand Total 500 _______ _______%

Model Excel format for direct use by audit teams:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UGdF3dz0ojRYKDoHIIIQr-vp-9K-JCMV/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=107023064021447656547&rtpof=true&sd=true


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FQE-P stands for:

Faculty Qualification, Industry Experience & Pedagogy

It is a modified version of the earlier FQE (Faculty with PhD and Experience) metric. This updated metric adds pedagogical skills and industry exposure into the evaluation.


🔍 Breakdown of FQE-P:

Component Description Example Evidence
Faculty Qualification % of faculty with PhD, M.Tech/MBA, or equivalent Degree certificates, HR data
Industry Experience Faculty with relevant work in industry, research labs, startups Experience letters, resumes
Pedagogical Training Completion of pedagogy-related FDPs, MOOCs (e.g., SWAYAM/NPTEL) FDP/MOOC certificates
Innovative Teaching Methods Use of flipped classrooms, case-based learning, ICT tools Lesson plans, LMS usage

🎯 Purpose:

  • Encourage teaching excellence, not just academic qualification.

  • Promote practical industry knowledge among faculty.

  • Aligns with Outcome-Based Education (OBE) goals.

  • Incentivizes innovative teaching practices.

Let me know if you want a sample evaluation rubric for FQE-P.



Python Revisited

Python You Tube Playlist https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6G-TBgNUsmV91GGozbv8IOt3JBOuVLSf&si=Rb7YYrWEB8xIpPZg Python (visual) Python...