Unveiling the Veil: BITS Pilani VC Demands Clarity on NIRF's 'Perception Parameter' Black Box

India's higher education landscape is constantly evolving, with the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) playing a pivotal role in shaping perceptions and guiding choices. However, a significant voice from within the academic community is now questioning a crucial, yet enigmatic, component of these highly influential rankings.

Dr. Ramgopal Rao, the distinguished Vice-Chancellor of the BITS Pilani Group, has boldly labeled the 'perception parameter' within the NIRF framework as an "absolute black box," issuing a compelling call for urgent transparency.

Addressing a panel discussion on India's global aspirations in higher education, Dr.

Rao didn't mince words. He highlighted that while the NIRF rankings are crucial for institutions, students, and policymakers, the methodology behind the 'perception parameter' remains shrouded in mystery. This particular parameter carries substantial weight, accounting for 20% in engineering and a significant 25% in management categories.

For a quarter of an institution's overall score to be determined by a factor with no discernible public methodology, it naturally raises questions about fairness and accuracy.

The core of Dr. Rao's concern lies in the complete lack of clarity. "Nobody knows who contributes to this perception score," he stated, pointing out that there's no public information on the panel of experts, the specific questions asked, or the overall process of data collection and evaluation.

This opacity makes it virtually impossible for institutions to understand how their 'perception' is being assessed, let alone how to strategically improve in this critical area. How can an institution enhance its standing if it doesn't know the criteria or the individuals forming the perception?

The consequences of such an opaque system are profound.

Dr. Rao argued that this "black box" could potentially distort the true picture of an institution's quality and efforts. Deserving institutions, perhaps excelling in every other measurable parameter, might find their overall ranking unfairly impacted by an unquantifiable 'perception' score. This not only disincentivizes genuine improvements in areas like teaching, research, and outreach but also undermines the trust in the ranking system itself.

Drawing a parallel with international ranking systems, Dr.

Rao noted that while global frameworks like QS and Times Higher Education (THE) also incorporate reputation or perception parameters, they tend to be far more transparent about their methodologies. They often detail the survey processes, the pool of respondents, and how these scores are calculated, providing a level of accountability that is currently missing in NIRF.

Dr.

Rao's impassioned plea is not for the removal of the perception parameter, but for its demystification. He advocates for the NIRF to publicly disclose its methodology for this parameter, share the survey questions used, and provide aggregated scores (without revealing individual institution data) to all participating institutions.

Such steps would not only enhance the credibility and trust in the NIRF rankings but also empower institutions to genuinely understand and address areas for improvement, fostering a healthier, more competitive, and transparent higher education ecosystem in India. His call serves as a crucial reminder that for rankings to truly serve their purpose, they must be built on foundations of clarity and accountability.