Why Ranking Systems Don’t Serve India’s Education Aspirations

Education Rankings—A Mirage of Merit (ICC Blog #109)

Creative by spm

The Illusion of Objectivity

India’s education system is a vast and intricate tapestry, serving over 248 million school students across approximately 1.47 million schools and more than 43 million higher education enrollees in thousands of colleges and universities as of 2023-24. Despite this scale, ranking systems like the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) attempt to distil this diversity into a narrow hierarchy, often spotlighting elite, urban institutions while sidelining the majority. Marketed as tools for transparency and informed choice, these rankings instead perpetuate inequality, overlook contextual realities, and fail to drive systemic improvement. Critics argue they foster an "obsession" with treating education as a market commodity rather than a public right, undermining access and quality. This essay critiques the limitations of ranking systems in India’s education landscape and proposes an alternative framework—the Institutional Insight Grid (IIG)—to foster equity, collaboration, and meaningful progress.

The Problem with School Rankings

Scale vs. Selectivity

India’s schooling system is colossal, with over 95% of children aged 6-14 enrolled and pre-primary enrollment for 4-5-year-olds reaching 83.3% in 2024. Each year, millions of new students enter this ecosystem, supported by 1.47 million schools across state boards, CBSE, ICSE, IGCSE, and IB curricula. Yet, ranking systems typically evaluate only a few thousand elite schools, creating a skewed perception of excellence. This selective focus ignores the vast majority of institutions, particularly those in rural or under-resourced areas, rendering rankings irrelevant to the broader educational landscape. For instance, while a handful of urban schools dominate lists, 80% of students in government or rural schools are left unrepresented, limiting the utility of rankings for systemic improvement.

Urban Bias and Elitism

Top-ranked schools, such as Doon School or DPS RK Puram (not any particular order or intent), are predominantly urban, private, and prohibitively expensive, with annual fees ranging from a few lakhs to over ₹10 lakh. This urban bias reinforces privilege, as rural schools in states like Bihar, Odisha, or Kerala lack the resources or visibility to compete. At the same time, there is sufficient evidence in real life that students from the state board, rural schools have also created world-class impact in their chosen professions.

The growth of private schools, up 15% in urban areas from 2020-2025, is driven by perceived quality but remains inaccessible to low-income families, who rely on public schools with limited infrastructure. Rankings thus cater to an elite minority—less than 5% of the population—while failing to address the needs of the majority, exacerbating social divides and entrenching inequity.

No Mechanism for Knowledge Transfer

Rankings foster competition rather than collaboration, offering no framework for schools to share best practices. A rural school in Jharkhand, for example, cannot easily adopt the pedagogical innovations of an elite institution like Doon School without structured mentorship or resource-sharing mechanisms. Metrics like infrastructure or teacher qualifications often penalise public schools, which face funding shortages and regional disparities. Without incentives for knowledge transfer, rankings do little to uplift underperforming schools or bridge quality gaps, rendering them a tool for vanity rather than progress.

Higher Education Rankings—A Mirage of Merit

Exclusion by Design

In higher education, rankings similarly favour exclusivity over inclusivity. Elite institutions like IITs and IIMs admit only 1-5% of applicants, leaving the vast majority of India’s 43 million college students to navigate less prestigious or affordable options. With private university fees often exceeding public options and scholarships limited, affordability remains a significant barrier. Rankings thus serve a tiny fraction of aspirants while offering little guidance to the 95% who must settle for alternatives, effectively excluding the majority from the benefits of “top-tier” education.

Metrics: Ignore Context and Integrity

Ranking metrics—emphasising research output, faculty-student ratios, and international collaborations—favour well-funded, urban universities while undervaluing regional institutions that prioritise social missions, such as serving marginalised communities. For example, universities in tier-2 or tier-3 cities, which cater to local students, are penalised for lacking global benchmarks, despite their critical role in expanding access. Moreover, criticisms of NIRF include "gaming" through data manipulation and inconsistencies, eroding trust in the system. The overemphasis on grades and pointers stifles innovation, with India’s universities lagging globally—none rank in the world’s top 300. This disconnect highlights how rankings prioritise prestige over practical impact.

No Link to Employability or Social Impact

Rankings rarely measure outcomes like graduate employability, community engagement, or real-world problem-solving. Issues like poor infrastructure, faculty shortages, and outdated curricula, which plague many institutions, are sidelined in favour of metrics like publication counts. With India’s Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) at 28.4%, affordability and access remain critical barriers, particularly for marginalised groups. Rankings fail to highlight institutions that innovate in pedagogy or serve underserved populations, missing opportunities to promote inclusive growth or align education with societal needs.

A Better Way Forward—The Institutional Insight Grid (IIG)

Ecosystem Mapping Over Hierarchy

To address these shortcomings, India needs a paradigm shift from rankings to ecosystem mapping. The proposed Institutional Insight Grid (IIG) would provide attribute-based profiles of schools, colleges, and universities, highlighting strengths, gaps, and collaborative potential. Unlike rankings, which create a zero-sum hierarchy, the IIG would enable peer learning, regional development, and targeted policy interventions. By showcasing institutions’ unique contributions—such as a rural school’s community outreach or a university’s industry partnerships—it would empower stakeholders to make informed choices based on fit, not prestige.

Outcome-Based and Multi-Measure Systems

The IIG advocates for outcome-based accreditation that prioritises learning outcomes, return on investment (ROI), and community impact over comparative scores. Drawing inspiration from global models like Georgetown’s ROI metrics or FFT Datalab’s contextual evaluations, this approach would assess institutions based on student growth, employability, and social contributions. For schools, this could mean tracking board exam pass rates and holistic development; for universities, it could include placement data and innovation metrics. Such a system ensures accountability without penalising institutions for contextual constraints.

Mentorship and Collaborative Networks

To bridge quality gaps, the IIG proposes tiered mentorship networks where elite institutions support emerging ones. For example, an IIT could mentor a regional engineering college, sharing resources and expertise. Horizontal collaboration, rather than vertical competition, would foster innovation and equity. Integrating affordability measures—like expanded scholarships and loan programs—would further ensure access, addressing the financial barriers that rankings ignore. This collaborative model aligns with calls for student-centred, multi-measure alternatives that celebrate diversity and drive systemic change.

Institutional Insight Grid (IIG): A Contextual Listing Framework

Purpose

The IIG replaces hierarchical rankings with a searchable, attribute-driven database to promote transparency, fit-based decision-making, and institutional collaboration, addressing criticisms of elitism and irrelevance.

Schools Listing Attributes

Attribute	Description
Year of Establishment	Historical context and legacy
Board Affiliation	CBSE, ICSE, State Board, IB, IGCSE
Geographical Location	State, District, Urban/Rural classification
Medium of Instruction	English, Hindi, and Regional languages
Academic Success Rate	Pass percentage in board exams (3-year average)
Beyond Academics	Sports, cultural events, and language programs
Community Engagement	Local outreach, parent involvement, social initiatives
Infrastructure Snapshot	Labs, libraries, digital classrooms, and sanitation
Teacher Credentials	Qualifications, training hours, retention rates
Inclusion Metrics	Gender ratio, disability access, and scholarships

 Colleges and Universities Listing Attributes

Attribute	Description
Year of Establishment	Legacy and evolution
University Affiliation	Parent university or autonomous status
Specialization Areas	Engineering, Arts, Commerce, Law, etc.
Geographical Location	State, District, Urban/Rural classification
Accreditation Status	NAAC grade, NBA (focus on participation)
Beyond Academics	Sports, cultural societies, innovation hubs
Industry MOUs	Collaborations with companies, CSR partners
Academic MOUs	Tie-ups with universities, research centres
Campus Placement Data	Placement percentage, top recruiters, average package
Research & Innovation	Patents, funded projects, student innovations
Alumni Impact	Notable alumni, social contributions
Inclusion & Equity	Scholarships, gender ratio, and regional representation

Optional Add-ons

• Digital Readiness Index: Smart classrooms, learning management systems.

• Sustainability Practices: Green initiatives, waste management.

• Language & Heritage Programs: Regional languages, classical arts.

• Student Voice: Feedback mechanisms, student councils.

Output Format

A searchable web portal or app with filters and visualisations (e.g., location-based maps) for accessibility.

Strategic Benefits

• Informed Choices: Matches institutions to student needs and budgets.

• Transparency and Collaboration: Highlights MOUs and fosters partnerships.

• Policy Targeting: Identifies underserved areas for interventions.

• Holistic Value: Celebrates diverse contributions, aligning with student-centred models.

By embracing the IIG, India can move beyond the limitations of rankings, fostering an education system that is equitable, collaborative, and truly transformative.

Conclusion: From Vanity to Value

Ranking systems, while appealing to an elite minority, fail to serve India’s broader educational aspirations. In a nation where education is a lifeline for millions, the focus must shift from vanity metrics to value-driven frameworks. The Institutional Insight Grid offers a transformative alternative, providing transparent, attribute-based profiles that empower students, parents, and policymakers to make informed choices. By celebrating institutional diversity, fostering collaboration, and targeting policy gaps, the IIG aligns with India’s need for inclusive, equitable education. As costs rise and access remains uneven in 2025, this shift is not just desirable but essential for nation-building.