#6 Drawbacks and Limitations (Revisited)

 The ranking parameters you’ve shared are from India’s NIRF (National Institutional Ranking Framework) or a similar framework. While this framework aims to offer a comprehensive evaluation, there are some drawbacks and limitations that can affect fairness and accuracy.

---

1. Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR)

Drawbacks:

• FSR may be manipulated: Institutions may temporarily adjust faculty-student ratios.

• PhD faculty may not always mean quality teaching: Experience and qualification don’t always correlate with teaching effectiveness.

• Infrastructure metric (LL) favors older or richer institutions: Newer institutions may be penalized despite good teaching quality.

• Sports/Extra-Curricular Activities (SEC) get minimal weight (only 10 marks): This undermines holistic development.

---

2. Research Productivity, Impact and IPR (RPII)

Drawbacks:

• Quantity over quality: High publication count (PU) may promote low-impact or predatory journal publications.

• Citation metrics (CI) may be biased**: Older or larger institutions naturally have more citations.

• IPR score limited: Patents filed don’t always reflect innovation; commercialisation or utility is ignored.

---

3. Graduation Outcome (GO)

Drawbacks:

• Only exam scores are considered: Learning outcomes, practical skills, and employability are not evaluated.

• Bias toward institutions with strong exam culture: It ignores institutions focusing on skill development or research-based curriculum.

---

4. Outreach and Inclusivity (OI)

Drawbacks:

• Region diversity may be artificial: Some institutions may admit out-of-state students just to score better.

• Women and disadvantaged students percentages may not reflect quality of support: Numbers alone don’t ensure inclusion or empowerment.

• Facilities for differently-abled (DAP) – very low weight (10 marks): Inclusion efforts may be undervalued.

---

5. Perception (PR)

Drawbacks:

• Highly subjective: Peer perception is influenced by brand, age, or popularity, not always by actual performance.

• Seat ratio (SR) can be misleading**: High demand doesn’t always reflect academic quality.

---

General Issues Across All Parameters:

• Urban bias: Institutions in metro areas tend to have better access to resources and networks.

• Self-reported data: Institutions may inflate figures or selectively present data.

• No weight for international collaboration or interdisciplinary programs.

• Placement and employability metrics are missing or unclear.

• Innovation in pedagogy or digital initiatives is not assessed.

---

Let me know if you need a summarized version for students or a comparison with international frameworks like QS or THE.