A 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 RankingsCriterion | Indicator | Weight |
---|
Education | Percentage of graduate students | 5% |
Percentage of non-local students | 5% |
Ratio of academic staff to students | 5% |
Doctoral degrees awarded | 10% |
Alumni as Nobel Laureates & Fields Medalists | 10% |
Research | Annual research income | 5% |
Nature & Science Papers | 10% |
SCIE & SSCI papers | 10% |
International patents | 10% |
Faculty | Percentage of academic staff with a doctoral degree | 5% |
Staff as Nobel Laureates and Fields Medalists | 10% |
Highly cited researchers | 10% |
Resources | Annual budget | 5%
|
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?