Global University Rankings: What should India do?

To appear in the March-April, 2015  issue of IETE Technical Review.

Before 1983, until the first university ranking in the world was published in U.S. News and World Report, the term “University rankings” was not taken very seriously. But more than a quarter century later, after the first university rankings were announced, India now keenly wants to be part of these rankings. What has changed during these years? With growing economic developments and increasing aspirations, the Indian public seek to know the inside functioning and operational efficiency of our higher educational institutes and universities. Since resources to the universities are made available through tax-payer’s money, it is also the responsibility of the universities to let the public know what is being achieved with these resources. The fact that Indian universities do not find their place among the top universities in the world has become a cause of intense public debate.

But the question is: should we compete to get a ‘respectable’ place in the world rankings or should we have a ranking system suitable to our country? Any ranking system we adopt should enhance the credibility of universities in the eyes of the general public leading to increased public confidence and trust. The Indian universities, like the other 15000 universities in the world, have national obligations to perform. One of the important commitments of a university is to provide equal access to higher education even if the university fails to get into the “global rankings” [1]. However, there is enough evidence to show that higher education has of late become a preserve of the elite. Global rankings have exacerbated the inequalities in deciding who can access good quality higher education [1 – 3]. Let us briefly see what has gone wrong.

We have several widely known ranking systems such as (i) Times Higher Education World University (THE) Rankings, (ii) QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) World University Rankings, (iii) Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the Shanghai Jiao Tong University Ranking, and (iv) Webometrics Ranking. All these ranking methods do have serious shortcomings [1]. Even the most popular ranking schemes cover only less than 5 % of all the universities in the world. THE and QS rankings give heavy weightage to reputational ranking through online surveys often with a strong bias towards English speaking countries. ARWU and THE use data from Thompson Reuters while QS uses data from Scopus (which is from Elsevier) making these rankings rely heavily on publications and citations in science based journals. Humanities and social sciences remain unrepresented in most ranking schemes. Universities with a main focus in these two areas, therefore, do not figure in the rankings. Rankings are also affected by the ability of universities to garner large endowments exceeding even the national budgets of some countries. The presence of Nobel laureates and Field medal winners who publish in the so-called elite science journals further influence these ratings.

Surprisingly, educational experience and learning outcomes of the students are not surveyed by most ranking schemes. This is a major omission since education is the primary objective of the universities [1]. They completely ignore if the teaching-learning practices in a university are of the highest order while its professors are researchers and unpretentious experts in a wide variety of fields including science. The global ranking schemes, therefore, only manufacture a fancy perception about a university’s reputation rather than represent its true functioning. This makes higher education a sellable commodity to the advantage of a few elite.

We tend to forget that assigning a numerical rank to a university, to measure its performance unfortunately deflects our attention from a university’s fundamental function i.e. education. Periodically, a university’s functioning should be audited. But this should be only to ensure quality of performance and accountability. Evaluation of a university should not degenerate into a single number for public display [1]. Even Indian media has started releasing the rankings of Indian universities but frequently with hilarious outcomes. That is because most media personnel neither understand the nuances of mathematics involved in ranking [1] nor appreciate the complexity of diversities intrinsic to the functioning of a university.

Why is it not desirable to assign a number to a university’s performance? Well, it reinforces the false impression that universities are like corporate entities who are expected to satisfy the consumer interests. Ranking, together with marketing and public relations, has made global higher education a marketable commodity [4]. As a result, by 2025, nearly eight million students are expected to study outside their countries. A bulk of these students come from China, India and other neighbouring countries. India is the second largest exporter of students to foreign universities. The beneficiaries are invariably the universities in English speaking countries [1].

It is estimated that to be in the “world class” of the rankings, a university’s budget must be 1.5 to 2 billion US dollars per year which is beyond the means of many universities in countries like India [5].  University rankings are also mired in controversies due to the fact that many a times, rankings could be influenced by made-up, dicey and false data. When we trust the rankings, rather than professional integrity and peer regulation to evaluate a university’s excellence, this can lead to undesirable results. We must remember that “when universities openly and increasingly pursue commercialization, it powerfully legitimizes and reinforces the pursuit of economic self-interest by students and contributes to the widespread sense among them that they are in college solely to gain career skills and credentials” [1], [6].

University rankings also have affected the administrators, parents and students on ‘what we choose to do, who we try to be, and what we think of ourselves’ in higher education [1], [7].  The use of rankings is now increasingly being seen by many countries as an indirect way of pressurising the universities into “a costly and high-stakes academic arms race” instead of focussing more on the immediate developmental and social needs of a country [8]. Rankings have simply become aids to the potential ‘customers’ who have financial resources to access these highly ranked elite universities [9]. University rankings in general are not neutral methods. They are influenced by politico-ideological technologies to exclude or include a university into the elite club. Rankings, therefore, assign a hierarchized social identity to the university. This substitution of quest for excellence by ultra-eliteness results in a greater stratification and concentration of resources forcing the less fortunate universities into an un-recoverable cycle of disadvantage [10].

This makes the global university rankings notoriously untrustworthy and unsuitable for countries like India. Therefore, even before India thinks of getting into global university rankings, it needs to develop a credible and transparent ranking system which reflects India’s social and national requirements. What are these requirements?

We should recall that universities are public-interest entities [1]. Public trust in a university and its reputation, therefore, depend on the social impact the university makes.  Social impact is directly related to the quality of the talent or skill training provided to the students in a university who will in turn become the back bone of the work force. India today requires a huge skilled work force. How well are our universities prepared to meet this challenge?  To give an example, nearly a million students write the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) every year to try their luck in getting admission into post-graduate education. However, on an average, only about 15 – 17 % of the candidates qualify in this exam each year. This is a clear indication of the poor quality of educational training they have received in their undergraduate level courses. Our universities have largely failed in talent training and skill development. Their indifference has only made their moral standing weaker in public perception.

We should not lose sight of the fact that a university is not a commercial entity but a place of higher learning, conducting teaching and research at the undergraduate and postgraduate level [9]. Therefore, it is imperative that India should develop an India specific ranking system, which is both transparent and reliable, to assess the performance of Indian universities. This should be based on, for example, (i) the care universities provide in making higher education accessible even to the most under privileged, (ii) the skill or talent training that a university imparts to the students so that they become agents of social and economic transformation, (iii) how well the universities encourage the ability to think in an unorthodox fashion and carry out original research in different fields, (iv) the ability of a university to develop technologies relevant to the local social needs and human development, and so on.

Every few years, drawing from our experience and from other countries which are not in the business of commercializing higher education, we should keep improving our ranking system to advance the academic excellence of the Indian universities. If we focus on the core objectives of our universities i.e. teaching and research, it will not be too far away when we will be talking about the excellence of Indian universities rather than their rankings. When Indian universities become known for their excellence, they should be in a position to attract students and best intellects from across the world, in turn improving their global prestige and recognition. If we can transform our higher educational institutes into great universities for their knowledge and social commitment, what else do we want? Do you agree with me?


  1. K. Lynch, “Control by numbers: new managerialism and ranking in higher education”, Critical Studies in Education, 2014,
  2. T. McCowan, “Is there a universal right to higher education?” British Journal of Educational Studies, vol. 60(2), pp.111–128, 2012.
  3. K. Lynch, B. Grummell and D. Devine, New managerialism in education: Gender, commercialization and carelessness, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
  4. J. Rutherford, “Cultural studies in the corporate university”, Cultural Studies, vol.19(3), pp.297–317, 2005.
  5. E. Hazelkorn, Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world class excellence, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, p.197, 2011.
  6. I. Harkavy, “The role of universities in advancing citizenship and social justice in the 21st century”, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, vol.1(1), pp.5–37, 2006.
  7. I. Hacking, The taming of chance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  8. I. Ordorika and M. Lloyd, “International rankings and the contest for university hegemony”, Journal of Education Policy, 2014, DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2014.979247.
  9. P. Taylor and R. Braddock, “International University Ranking Systems and the Idea of University Excellence”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 29(3), pp.245-260, 2007.
  10. S. S. Amsler and C. Bolsmann, “University ranking as social exclusion”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, vol. 33(2), pp.283-301, 2012.
Posted in Education and Research | 5 Comments

A Silicon Biristor with Reduced Operating Voltage: Proposal and Analysis

In this paper, using 2D simulations, we report a silicon biristor with reduced operating voltage using the surface accumulation layer transistor (SALTran) concept. The electrical characteristics of the proposed SLATran biristor are simulated and compared with that of a conventional silicon biristor with identical dimensions. The proposed device is optimized with respect to the device parameters to ensure a reasonable latch window while maintaining low latch voltages. Our results demonstrate that the SALTran biristor exhibits a latch-up voltage of 2.14 V and a latch-down voltage of 1.68 V leading to a 57% lower operating voltage compared to the conventional silicon biristor.

The paper is freely downloadable from IEEE Journal of Electron Devices Society

Posted in Abstracts of my Research Work | Tagged | Leave a comment

Vertical Bipolar Charge Plasma Transistor with Buried Metal Layer

A self-aligned vertical Bipolar Charge Plasma Transistor (V-BCPT) with a buried metal layer between undoped silicon and buried oxide of the silicon-on-insulator substrate, is reported in this paper. Using two-dimensional device simulation, the electrical performance of the proposed device is evaluated in detail. Our simulation results demonstrate that the V-BCPT not only has very high current gain but also exhibits highBVCEO · fT product making it highly suitable for mixed signal high speed circuits. The proposed device structure is also suitable for realizing doping-less bipolar charge plasma transistor using compound semiconductors such as GaAs, SiC with low thermal budgets. The device is also immune to non-ideal current crowding effects cropping up at high current densities.

You can download the full paper from


Posted in Abstracts of my Research Work | Leave a comment

Innovation and technology should lead to abundance not scarcity

To appear in IETE Technical Review, Jan-Feb 2015.

How did economies start? In olden days, after meeting our requirements, we shared the surplus with neighbours and relatives. This also helped us bridge relationships necessary for a healthy society. However, when we started using money as a primary medium of transaction, the producer and the consumer became separate entities and began to increasingly exchange scarce man-made goods. As a result, we moved from a situation of abundance (of labour, goodwill, and renewable resources) to scarcity. This problem is compounded by the advent of science and technological innovations [1].

In 1934, Stuart Chase, in The Economy of Abundance, suggested to  imagine the life of people who lived 100 years ago [1], [2]. They were using far less energy than we are using now. They found means of deriving energy from the easily available and renewable resources such as wood, water, wind and animal labour. It was a hard life, nonetheless, socially rewarding and personally satisfying. Nearly two centuries later, we use several hundreds of times more energy than those people. A typical US lifestyle requires ~11 kW/person and in Europe, it is ~3.5 -5.5 kW/person. India and China manage with about 1 kW/person. The world average nowadays is about 2 kW/person. If our energy requirements continue to increase at today’s rate, in future we may require, on an average, no less than 4 kW/person. This translates into about 40 TW for a 10 billion people world [3]. That is mind boggling!

In spite of technological advances and increased consumption of energy, modern life has become very complex and is not any happier than it was a couple of centuries ago. We have become self-centered and devoid of any social concerns. A behavioural neuroscientist would describe us today as curiosity driven and pleasure seeking human animals. Our striving for immediate gratifications and insatiable desires is addictive. This deprives us of the opportunity to be self-aware and prudent and does not let us work towards building an equitable and sustainable society using science and technology as instruments [4].

The basis for being a scientist is rational thinking. Unfortunately, when we are rational, it snatches away from us the neutral values such as love, compassion and sharing which are the foundations for a happy living. Therefore, a rational person becomes a self-interested person. It is a time-honoured fact that a self-interested person cannot contribute to the common good of the society [5].

With the advent of science (and hence, rational thinking) together with money as our medium of transaction, we moved from a situation of abundance to scarcity because wealth accumulation has become our primary focus. Greed (an unwillingness to share) is the shadow of scarcity. Creating scarcity fuels competition. To be competitive, we use innovation and withhold knowledge [1]. Legal restrictions on knowledge lead to monopoly and exploitation by those who hold the knowledge. Hence, we drifted from a position of exchange of surplus to exchange of scarcity idolizing profit driven innovators as the primary vehicles of development. “Abundance has been appropriated by some and squandered by most of us” leading to the mess that we are in [2]. In this situation, those who are rich become richer at the cost of those who are marginal. We seem to have forgotten what Andrew Carnegie, a great philanthropist, once wrote: ‘A man who dies rich dies disgraced’.

A rational and sustainable world is possible only if there is abundance. For innovators to be able to build a sustainable world, we need to create an environment where passion, intrinsic motivation and willingness to share knowledge become core values to the psychology of young innovators. Innovation and technology should be used to make our lives fulfilling and cooperative. We should not let innovation and technology make us more anxious, addictive, fearful, competitive and greedy than ever.

I think we need to sensitize our young innovators to revisit our economic models and strive to build economies of abundance rather than scarcity.


  1. A. Fricker, “Economies of abundance”, Futures, vol.31, pp.271–280, 1999.
  2. S. Chase, The economy of abundance, New York: MacMillan, 1934.
  3. D. Cahen and I. Lubomirsky, “Energy, the global challenge, and materials”, Materials Today, vol.11, no.12, pp.116-120, December 2008.
  4. P. C. Whybrow, “Dangerously addictive: Why we are biologically ill-suited to the riches of modern America”, Neuropsychiatria i Neuropsychologia, vol.4, issue no.3-4, pp.111-115, 2009.
  5. M. Olson, The logic of collective action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965.
Posted in Education and Research | Tagged | 5 Comments

Pravasi Bharatiya Divas 2015

Photos from my session in Pravasi Bharatiya Divas in Ahmedabad held on 7th January 2015. I gave a talk on “Innovations in modern India”. The other speakers in my session are:

Dr Harsh Vardhan, Union Minister for Science & Technology & Earth Sciences, Government of India

Dr K Radhakrishnan, Former Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)

Prof Manjul Bhargava, R Brandon Fradd Professor of Mathematics, Princeton University, United States of America

Dr G Satheesh Reddy, Distinguished Scientist & Director, Research Centre Imarat (RCI), Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)

Mr Soumeet Lanka, Co-Founder, The Maker of Things

Posted in Education and Research | Leave a comment

2014 in review

The stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

Here's an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 22,000 times in 2014. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 8 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Posted in Education and Research | Leave a comment

Even brilliant ideas are never new: The need to cite appropriate references in a research paper

Andre K. Geim, who shared the 2010 Nobel prize in physics, once said:  “One should realize that ideas are never new. However brilliant, every idea is always based on previous knowledge”. For example, the internet would not have been possible without integrated circuits which in turn would not have been possible without the invention of transistors.

Unlike the journalists who write political news and prefer not to divulge their sources, researchers who create new knowledge and publish it in professional journals have a different task to do: reveal their sources of information. Therefore, when the editor has to make a decision on a research manuscript, the foremost point that needs to be checked is whether the author has attempted to establish the significance of the proposed work in relation to existing knowledge by citing appropriate references.

As an editor, I have frequently come across cases where many authors botch on this important attribute. The universal belief that we cite references to protect ourselves from plagiarism is not wholly right. Suitable citation of references is important not only to acknowledge the role of other published research on the author’s work but also to establish a verifiable context for the new idea. Providing relevant references in the paper will also inform the reader about ideas that back the new proposal and those that highlight the limitations of the previous work.

While it is important to cite even older papers to point out the historical background to the author’s work, it is even more imperative for the editor to ensure that authors cite papers that have been published during the last couple of years. This will establish the relevance of the work submitted to the journal as timely and current research. Being an editor, I am quite sensitive to the fact that inadequate referencing will also deprive the readers of locating the background material required to comprehend the work presented in the paper.

It turns out that occasionally even reputable researchers have a penchant to not cite some references by design. As displeasing as it may be to have one’s work not cited, it is even harder to tolerate if someone tries to project their work as a new idea without citing prior art. This is where reviewers and the editor should step in to correct any conspicuous omissions of referencing. Vigilant editors and reviewers should treat exclusion of key references in a research paper as an abominable practice and take corrective steps.

Before I make my editorial decision on a paper submitted to my journal, I always bear in my mind that accurate referencing is as vital as the idea that the author is espousing.

This article is available at

Posted in Education and Research | Tagged , , | Leave a comment