 "IISc, 6 IITs slip in QS World University Rankings 2016-17")
A relatively low number of doctoral students coupled with globally insufficient faculty-student ratio have resulted in the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bangalore, along with six of seven top-ranked Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), slip in the 13th edition of the QS World University Rankings 2016-17.
Compiled by global higher education think tank Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), the ranking saw Massachusetts Institute of Technology being ranked as the world’s best university for the fifth consecutive year, while India’s highest ranked institution IISc Bangalore dropped out of the top 150 to be ranked at 152nd this year, down from 147 last year.
Six IITs, including Delhi, Bombay, Kanpur, Kharagpur, Roorkee and Guwahati too slipped, while IIT Madras improved by five places to break into the global top 250 universities.
Among the six premier institutes, IIT Delhi was ranked at 185 place for 2016-17, against 179 last year, IIT Bombay at 219 (against 202 last year), IIT Kanpur 302 (271), IIT Kharagpur 313 (286), IIT Roorkee 399 (391) and IIT Guwahati in the 481-490 band, against 451-460 band last year.
In terms of different parameters, four Indian institutions remain among the world’s top 100 for research impact, as measured by QS’ citations per faculty metric, the education think tank stated in an official communiqué. However, this is one fewer than in the 2015-16 instalment. IIT Madras drops eight ranks to 101st for research impact.
On the upside, IISC Bangalore is now ranked as the world’s 11th best research institution, according to the citations per faculty scoring, data for which was sourced using Elsevier’s Scopus database.
Ben Sowter, head of research at the QS Intelligence Unit, attributed Indian institutions’ consistent falls to factors such as relatively low numbers of PhD-qualified researchers and low international faculty ratio, among others. According to Sowter, numbers of PhD-qualified researchers have a direct impact on research productivity and impact of Indian universities. Sowter further noted that no Indian institution ranks above 700th for QS’ international faculty ratio metric.
“This year’s rankings imply that levels of investment are determining who progresses and who regresses. Institutions in countries that provide high levels of targeted funding, whether from endowments or from the public purse, are rising. On the other hand, Western European nations making or proposing cuts to public research spending are losing ground to their US and Asian counterparts. The performance of Indian institutions in our recent regional rankings suggests that India is gaining some ground on its regional competitors. Though India is making substantial and commendable progress towards ensuring that more of its tertiary-age population has access to tertiary education, the global edition indicates that substantial challenges remain,” said Sowter.
Further, nine Indian institutions also fell for faculty-student ratio, which measures the ability of universities to maintain class sizes conducive to high-quality teaching, thereby showcasing institutional teaching quality by proxy. This year’s findings suggest Indian universities are still struggling to provide both the quantity of quality faculty members necessary to meet rapidly-increasing student demand.
The QS World University Rankings called for considerable investment, in terms of human and capital for Indian institutions to remain competitive and upwardly mobile in the rankings even as the ministry of human resource development continues to target further increases in Gross Enrolment Ratios for the tertiary sector.
Meanwhile, globally Stanford University displaced the University of Cambridge in the top three positions, with Harvard moving to second position. Further, while countries like Russia, China, South Korea and Japan saw considerable improvements, others like the UK, France and Italy lost ground in the QS World University Rankings.
