The Methodology and over view of process of accreditation of educational institutions.

1. TA A L I M I I D A R O N K I
D A R J A B A N D I
MUJIB UDDIN SIDDIQUI
Deputy Mineral economist( Intelligence)
Indian Bureau of Mines

2. ACADEMIC GRADING
 Academic grading in India is based on a percentage
system.
 Generally, at the school level percentages of 80-90 are
considered excellent while above 90 is exceptional.
 At the university level however percentages between
69-79 are considered excellent and are quite difficult
to obtain.
 The direct comparison of the percentage of marks is
difficult between universities . Indeed,
 some requiring an 85% plus for the award of
Distinction while others would award Distinction at
above of 70%.
 60% may be the minimum passing mark some may
have a passing mark of 45%.

3. PROVIDES U.S. GRADE POINT EQUIVALENT FOR
PERCENTAGES SCORED IN INDIAN
UNIVERSITIES.[6]
Percentage
Classification/
Division
U.S. Grade Point
Equivalent
U.S. Grade
Equivalent
70% and above
Distinction /
Outstanding
4.0 A
60% and above but
below 70%
First class 3.5 - 3.99 A
50% and above but
below 60%
Second Class 2.5 - 3.49 B+/B
40% and above but
below 50%
Pass Class 1.5 - 2.49 C+/C
Below 40% Fail 0 - 1.49 F

4. CREATING A GRADING
MECHANISM FOR
INDIAN UNIVERSITIES
FROM SCRATCH,
PARTICULARLY IN A
LARGE, COMPLEX,
AND
DISORGANISED SYSTEM,
IS A MASSIVE
CHALLENGE
College and University Rankings

5.  Ranking of institutions in higher education ordered by various
combinations of various factors.
 Rankings have most often been conducted by magazines,
newspapers, websites, governments, or academics.
 In addition to ranking entire institutions, organizations
perform rankings of specific programs, departments, and
schools.
 Various rankings consider combinations of measures of wealth,
research excellence and/or influence, selectivity, student options,
eventual success, demographics, and other criteria.
 There are no known college rankings of student academic
quality.
 Some rankings evaluate institutions within a single country,
while others assess institutions worldwide.
 The subject has produced much debate about rankings
usefulness and accuracy.
 The expanding diversity in rating methodologies and
accompanying criticisms of each indicate the lack of consensus
in the field.

6. ACADEMIC RANKING OF WORLD
UNIVERSITIES
 The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU)
compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University and
now maintained by the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy,
has provided annual global rankings of universities
since 2003, making it the earliest of its kind.
 The ranking is funded by the Chinese government and
its initial purpose was to measure the gap between
Chinese and "world class" universities.
 ARWU rankings have been cited by The Economist
magazine. It has been lauded for being "consistent and
transparent" based on an article.
 The education ministers of France, Norway and
Denmark traveled to China to discuss and find ways to
improve their rankings.

7. ACADEMIC RANKING OF WORLD
UNIVERSITIES
 ARWU does not rely on surveys and school submissions.
 Among other criteria, ARWU includes the number of articles
published by Nature or Science and the number of Nobel Prize
winners and Fields Medalists (mathematics).
 Harvard and Stanford have topped the ranking for years.
 One of the primary criticisms of ARWU's methodology is that it is
biased towards the natural sciences and English language science
journals over other subjects. Moreover, the ARWU is known for
"relying solely on research indicators", and "the ranking is heavily
weighted toward institutions whose faculty or alumni have won
Nobel Prizes": it does not measure "the quality of teaching or the
quality of humanities.”

8. CENTER FOR WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS
 The Saudi Arabia-based consulting organization
has published yearly rankings of world
universities since 2012.
 Rankings are based on quality of education,
alumni employment, quality of faculty, number of
publications, number of publications in high-
quality journals, citations, scientific impact and
number of patents.

9. INDIA DOESN'T FIGURE IN WORLD TOP-100
UNIVERSITIES (SEP 17, 2010)
 India is nowhere in the world university rankings. As per the
three rankings — Times Higher Education World University
Rankings, Academic Ranking of World Universities compiled
by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and QS World University
Rankings

US dominates all the three rankings, the QS rankings have China,
Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan and
even Thailand ahead of India with IIT-Bombay in the 187th
position.
 In the other two rankings, (Times Higher Education World
University Rankings and Academic Ranking of World
Universities) India finds no place in the top 200, but Taiwan,
South Korea, Hong Kong, Singaporeand Turkey bag decent places
in between the two rankings.
 B K Mathur, dean, planning and co-ordination, IIT Kharagpur,
however, dismisses the world university rankings as a subject for
"coffee table discussions"

10. ACADEMIC RANKING IN INDIA
 Magazines such as Youth Incorporated, India
Today, Outlook, Mint, The Week, Dataquest
and EFY conduct Annual rankings for the
major disciplines.
 India University Rankings
 Indian Engineering College Rankings
 Indian Law School Rankings etc.

11. INDIA TODAY RANKING PARAMETERS
 Reputation
 Academic Input
 Student Care
 Infrastructure
 Placement
 Perceptual Rank
 Factual Rank

13. CAREERS360 LAW COLLEGES RANKING
METHODOLOGY

14. Parameters and Weightages
Methodology ScoreInclusions
INPUT
Student
Quality
100 Diversity (gender, region); Entrance test
score/
cut-off mark
Faculty Quality
& Engagement
50 PhD faculty, teaching & legal domain
experience
PROCESS
Living 50 Residential campus;
student facilities
Teaching
Quality
50 Accreditation/recognition; student to
faculty ratio; course up-dation, electives
etc.
Learning 25 Moot courts, workshops and key activities
OUTPUT
Research Output 125 Publication count scaled against authors;
citation et al
Alumni;
Goodwill
100 Alumni status; industry/society interface

15.  The NATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND
ACCREDITATION COUNCIL (NAAC) is an
autonomous body established by the University
Grants Commission (UGC) of India to assess
and accredit institutions of higher education in
the country. It is an outcome of the
recommendations of the National Policy in
Education (1986) which laid special emphasis
on upholding the quality of higher education in
India.

16. WHY ACCREDITATION?
Definition: The act of granting credit or recognition
(especially with respect to educational institution that
maintains suitable standards)
Education plays a vital role in the development of any
nation. Therefore, there is a premium on both quantity
(increased access) and quality (relevance and excellence of
academic programmes offered) of higher education.
The NAAC has been set up to facilitate the volunteering
institutions to assess their performance vis-a-vis set
parameters through introspection and a process that
provides space for participation of the institution.

17. BENEFITS OF ACCREDITATION
Accreditation facilitates
• institution to know its strengths, weaknesses, and
opportunities through an informed review process.
• identification of internal areas of planning and resource
allocation
• collegiality on the campus.
• funding agencies look for objective data for performance
funding.
• institutions to initiate innovative and modern methods of
pedagogy.
• new sense of direction and identity for institutions.
• the society look for reliable information on quality education
offered.
• employers look for reliable information on the quality of
education offered to the prospective recruits.
• intra and inter-institutional interactions.

18. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT
 NAAC has identified the following seven criteria to
serve as the basis of its assessment procedures:
 • Curricular Aspects
 • Teaching-Learning and Evaluation
 • Research, Consultancy and Extension
 • Infrastructure and Learning Resources
 • Student Support and Progression
 • Governance, Leadership and Management
 • Innovations and Best Practices

19. KEY ASPECTS
 The Seven Criteria is further divided into "Key
Aspects”. Certain important Assessment Indicators
are identified under the Key Aspects and the Seven
Criteria which encompasses them, as probes or leads
for the Peer Team members to capture the micro-
level quality parameters. These indicators facilitate
the computing of the Key Aspect-wise Grade Points
(KA-GPS) and the Criterion-wise Grade Point
Averages (CR-GPAs) in order to arrive at the quality
status of the institution.

20. WEIGHTAGES
The NAAC has categorized the Higher Educational Institutions
into three major types (University, Autonomous College, and
Affiliated/Constituent College) and assigned different weightages
to these criteria under different key aspects based on the
functioning and organizational focus of the three types of
(Higher Education Institutions)HEIs.
The criterion-wise differential weightages for the three types of
HEIs are:
 Curricular Aspects 150 (U) 150 (Au) 100 (Aff)
 Teaching-learning and Evaluation 200 (U) 300 (Au) 350 (Aff)
 Research, Consultancy and Extension 250 (U) 150 (Au) 150 (Aff)
 Infrastructure and Learning Resources 100 (U) 100 (Au) 100 (Aff)
 Student Support and Progression 100 (U) 100 (Au) 100 (Aff)
 Governance, Leadership and Management 100 (U) 100 (Au) 100 (Aff)
 Innovations and Best Practices 100 (U) 100 (Au) 100 (Aff)

21. GRADING
 Institutions are graded for each Key Aspect under
four categories, viz. A, B, C and D, denoting Very
good, Good, Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory levels
respectively.
 The summated score for all the Key Aspects under a
Criterion is then calculated with the appropriate
weightage applied to it and the GPA is worked out for
the Criterion.
 The Cumulative GPA (CGPA), which gives the final
Assessment Outcome, is then calculated from the
seven GPAs pertaining to the seven criteria, after
applying the prescribed weightage to each Criterion.

22. ADVANTAGES OF CGPA
 • Letter grades converted to Numerical Grade Points
(overall score in Cumulative Grade Point Average)
 • Qualitative measurements converted to grade points
 • Wider scope for normalizing the scores
 • Extreme biases (if any) could be minimized
 • A one point difference between two letter grades, with 50
or 100 points assigned between two successive letter grades
results in appreciable fine-tuning of the process.
 • Relative evaluation would be more exact, due to a
reduction in variations and standard deviations
 • Inter-Peer Team variations are substantially reduced
 • With scare scope for adjustment at any stage, the peer
team judgment would be more accurate

23. Range of institutional
Cumulative Grade Point
Average (CGPA)
Letter Grade
Performance
Descriptor
3.01 - 4.00 A Very Good
(Accredited)
2.01 - 3.00 B Good
(Accredited)
1.51 - 2.00 C Satisfactory
(Accredited)
<= 1.50 D Unsatisfactory
(Not accredited)

25. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY GETS ‘A’ GRADE BY
NATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION COUNCIL
(NAAC) WITH 3.5 CUMULATIVE GRADE POINT AVERAGE
(CGPA).

26. ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION OF
HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Criteria and Key Aspects for Assessment
1. Curricular Aspects
2. Teaching-Learning and Evaluation
3. Research, Consultancy and Extension
4. Infrastructure and Learning Resources
5. Student Support and Progression
6. Governance, Leadership and
Management
7. Innovations and Best Practices

27. CRITERION I - CURRICULAR ASPECTS:
KEY ASPECTS
 Curriculum Design and Development
 Curriculum Planning and Implementation
 Academic flexibility
 Curriculum Enrichment
 Feedback System

28. CRITERION II - TEACHING-LEARNING AND
EVALUATION:
KEY ASPECTS
 Student Enrolment and Profile
 Catering to Student Diversity
 Teaching-Learning Process
 Teacher Quality
 Evaluation Process and Reforms
 Student Performance and Learning Outcomes

29. CRITERION III - RESEARCH,
CONSULTANCYAND EXTENSION:
KEY ASPECTS
 Promotion of Research
 Resource Mobilization for Research
 Research Facilities
 Research Publications and Awards
 Consultancy
 Extension Activities and Institutional Social
Responsibility
 Collaborations

30. CRITERION IV - INFRASTRUCTURE AND
LEARNING RESOURCES:
KEY ASPECTS
 Physical Facilities
 Library as a Learning Resource
 IT Infrastructure
 Maintenance of Campus Facilities

31. CRITERION V - STUDENT SUPPORT AND
PROGRESSION:
KEY ASPECTS
 Student Mentoring and Support
 Student Progression
 Student Participation and Activities

32. CRITERION VI - GOVERNANCE,
LEADERSHIPAND MANAGEMENT :
KEY ASPECTS
 Institutional Vision and Leadership
 Strategy Development and Deployment
 Faculty Empowerment Strategies
 Financial Management and Resource
Mobilization
 Internal Quality Assurance System (IQAS)

33. CRITERION VII - INNOVATIONS AND BEST
PRACTICES:
KEY ASPECTS
 Environment Consciousness
 Innovations
 Best Practices

34. CONCLUSION
 The idea of rankings is a good one.
 Rankings will stimulate the further professionalization of
Indian academe.
 Rankings will create a sense of competitiveness in the
system;
 It will help build a differentiated academic system with a few
internationally recognised research-intensive universities and
a much larger number of institutions that will focus mainly
on teaching.
 But implementation will not be easy.
 Those involved must be realistic about what is involved,
what the costs will be, and how much time and energy will
be required

35. KHWAB INKA

36. AUR TABIR