Introduction

India’s higher education system is one of the largest in the world, and since 2016, the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) has aimed to provide a structured evaluation of institutions. With participation expanding from 3,565 institutions in its inception year to 14,163 in 2025, and categories rising from four to seventeen, the NIRF has created a sense of competition and accountability. However, critical flaws remain: skewed weightage for subjective parameters, inadequate measurement of inclusivity, and overemphasis on reputational factors. These shortcomings risk reducing the exercise into a branding tool rather than a driver of equity and quality in higher education.

Why is NIRF in the News?

India Rankings 2025 has once again been dominated by legacy public institutions, underscoring persistent inequalities in India’s higher education landscape. Despite its expanded coverage, the framework continues to rely on flawed methodologies, including subjective peer perception and incomplete outreach and inclusivity parameters. Of particular concern is the neglect of socio-economically disadvantaged groups and students with disabilities in the inclusivity metric. The stakes are high: without reform, NIRF risks entrenching elitism and doing little to democratise access to quality education.

Is NIRF making higher education more equitable?

1. Outreach and Inclusivity (OI): Currently limited to regional and gender diversity while omitting socio-economic disadvantage and disability.
2. Troubling trends: Only JNU and AIIMS, Delhi scored above 70 in OI among the top 10, exposing the marginalisation of weaker sections.
3. Reservation policies: Central institutions still fail to adequately fill OBC, SC, and ST vacancies, undermining affirmative action.

Are the ranking parameters robust and fair?

1. Five key parameters: Teaching & resources (30%), research (30%), graduation outcomes (20%), outreach & inclusivity (10%), peer perception (10%).
2. Peer perception flaw: Criticised by Education Minister; reputation-based, subjective, and often biased against state-run or suburban institutions.
3. Self-declared data: Heavy reliance risks manipulation; false submissions remain unpunished.
4. Bibliometric dependence: While verifiable, this excludes non-English and socially relevant research output.

What challenges persist in India’s higher education system?

1. Regional imbalance: Few top-quality institutions outside metropolitan hubs.
2. Faculty shortage: Outside the top 100 institutions, a dearth of PhD-qualified teachers continues.
3. Weak research culture: 58% of management institutions reported zero research publications.
4. Mentorship gap: Legacy institutions rarely mentor emerging universities.

How can NIRF evolve beyond rankings?

1. Policy tool, not ritual: Insights must inform reforms instead of being an annual exercise.
2. Stronger inclusivity metrics: Incorporating socio-economic and disability parameters alongside gender and region.
3. Accountability: Penalising institutions submitting false data.
4. Capacity building: Encouraging collaboration between established and upcoming institutions.
5. Affirmative action: Monitoring recruitment policies and enforcing reservations in faculty hiring.

Conclusion

The NIRF has created awareness about institutional performance and expanded its scope significantly. Yet, unless it addresses fundamental flaws, especially inclusivity, fairness in assessment, and accountability, it risks becoming a branding exercise. For India’s higher education system to truly progress, rankings must serve as instruments of reform, driving equity, excellence, and social justice.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2015] The quality of higher education in India requires major improvement to make it internationally competitive. Do you think that the entry of foreign educational institutions would help improve the quality of technical and higher education in the country? Discuss.

Linkage: The NIRF 2025 rankings expose gaps in research output, inclusivity, and global competitiveness of Indian institutions. While reforms in ranking parameters can drive internal improvements, the entry of foreign universities may create healthy competition and raise benchmarks. Thus, the PYQ directly connects with debates on how India can achieve globally competitive higher education through both domestic reforms and external participation.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Introduction

India has long struggled with gender inequities in education. Despite government efforts like Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao and steady progress in enrolment, where girls now form 48% of the school population and even surpass men in gross enrolment ratios in higher education, financial investment by families continues to tilt in favor of boys. The 80th round of the National Sample Survey (Comprehensive Modular Survey on Education) reveals that boys consistently receive higher expenditure allocations across school stages and states, highlighting deep-rooted social biases in household decision-making.

Significance of the recent NSS report

1. New evidence: The 2024 survey covered 52,085 households and data for 57,742 students, making it one of the most comprehensive datasets on education expenditure.
2. Contradiction with enrolment success: Despite progress in closing gender enrolment gaps, the spending patterns show that financial priorities still favor boys.
3. Striking gap: In urban India, families spend ₹2,791 less per girl compared to boys, while in rural India, boys get 18% more spent on them.
4. Long-term concern: Such expenditure biases translate into inequities in learning outcomes, employability, and overall empowerment.

Gender patterns in household spending on education

1. All stages of schooling: Per-student expenditure on girls is consistently lower than boys from pre-primary to higher secondary.
2. Rural-urban divide: Rural families spend ₹1,373 more on boys; urban families spend 30% more on boys by higher secondary level.
3. Course fees: Families pay on average 21.5% more in fees for boys.

Private vs government schooling:

1. 58.4% of girls are in government schools.
2. 34% of boys access private unaided schools compared to 29.5% of girls.
3. Tuition classes: While enrollment in coaching is similar (26% girls vs 27.8% boys), expenditure differs, by higher secondary, families spend 22% more on tuition for boys.

State-level variations in educational expenditure

1. Delhi, MP, Rajasthan, Punjab: More than 10 percentage points gender gap in private school enrolment.
2. Tamil Nadu and Kerala: Gender parity—boys and girls access government and private schools almost equally.
3. Northeast States: Reverse trend—more girls enrolled in private schools.
4. Telangana, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal: Families spend vastly more on boys at higher secondary level.
   • Example: In Tamil Nadu, families spend ₹35,973 on boys vs ₹19,412 on girls.
5. Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh: More spending on girls at higher secondary, partly due to safety-related transport costs.

Gender gap in private coaching expenditure

1. Himachal Pradesh: Families spend ₹9,813 per boy vs ₹1,550 per girl on higher secondary tuition.
2. Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu: Also show significant tuition expenditure gaps.
3. Implication: Coaching is seen as a gateway to competitive exams and better career prospects—girls being left out deepens structural disadvantages.

Broader implications for gender equality

1. Hidden inequality: Enrolment parity does not mean equity in quality or investment.
2. Future workforce impact: Lower spending on girls limits their human capital development and perpetuates the gender pay gap.
3. Policy blind spots: Subsidies and scholarships exist, but social norms continue to undervalue daughters’ education.

Way Forward

Bridging the gender gap in educational expenditure requires a multi-pronged approach that addresses not just affordability but also deep-rooted social norms.

1. Strengthening targeted subsidies: Expansion of schemes like Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao, free bicycles for girls, and conditional cash transfers for secondary and higher education can encourage families to invest equally in daughters.
2. Equalising access to quality education: Improving the quality of government schools and providing digital learning resources will reduce the need for costly private schooling and tuitions, thereby narrowing gendered disparities.
3. Awareness and behavioural change: Community-level campaigns must challenge patriarchal mindsets that undervalue girls’ education. Civil society and self-help groups can be leveraged to reshape family-level decision-making.
4. Transport and safety interventions: Ensuring safe and affordable transport for girls, particularly in higher secondary education, will address a key cost component that discourages investment.
5. Monitoring and accountability: Data from National Sample Survey and Unified District Information System for Education (UDISE+) should be used to regularly monitor gendered expenditure gaps and inform evidence-based policies.
6. Integrating ethics and social responsibility: Education policies must go hand in hand with fostering a sense of justice, fairness, and equal opportunity, so that families see daughters as equal bearers of human capital.

Conclusion

The NSS findings show that while India has moved forward in closing the gender gap in enrolment, it still struggles with a silent financial discrimination in household educational spending. Unless families start valuing daughters’ education equally, not just in words but also in investment, true gender equality in education will remain elusive. Corrective measures through policy nudges, financial incentives, and awareness campaigns are essential to bridge this invisible divide.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2022] The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 remains inadequate in promoting incentive-based system for children’s education without generating awareness about the importance of schooling. Analyse.

Linkage: The NSS 80th round shows families spend 18–30% more on boys than girls, privileging them in private schools and coaching despite RTE’s universal access. This proves that incentive-based provisions under the RTE Act remain inadequate without tackling deep-rooted gender norms. Hence, awareness generation, gender-responsive budgeting, and social mobilisation are essential complements to legal entitlements.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now