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]


#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.



#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.

Schema for SIRF

 Here is the complete SQL schema and sample data inserts for your educational ecosystem involving Universities, Colleges, Departments, Pro...