During 2014-2015, none of India’s institutions, not even the IITs, IIMs, or NITs, featured in global rankings such as Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and Times Higher Education (THE).In response, the Union govt launched theNational Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), modelled on international benchmarks such as research output, student-faculty ratio, and peer perception. The idea was simple: improving performance on these fronts would eventually lift Indian institutions into the global league tables. And to a degree, it worked. Today, Indian higher education institutions appear in QS and THE rankings.Tamil Nadu, which prides itself on being one of the top destinations for higher education in India, has proposed a state institutional ranking framework.It’s therefore important to recall the criticisms levelled against NIRF, so the new framework doesn’t repeat old mistakes. One question is whether a ranking system modelled on global frameworks is relevant in the Indian context. NIRF focuses on research output, has a bias towards wealthy, English-speaking institutions, and an undue reliance on subjective reputation. In doing so, it overlooks institutions that uplift first-generation learners without necessarily boasting elite research profiles.This research obsession has opened the door to gaming the system — inflated publication counts, citation rings, and placement exaggerations. There’s enough evidence of institutions incentivising faculty to mass-produce papers, even if it means publishing in journals only to satisfy the metrics of research output. A 2020 audit found a substantial number of Indian academic papers appeared in dubious journals. This is a direct consequence of the ‘publish or perish’ culture. The rise of ‘authorship marketplaces’, where research papers are sold for ₹10,000-₹15,000, is a matter of concern, especially when research integrity is compromised. When scholarship is reduced to a transaction, the foundation of academic credibility is shaken.The compromise is evident in the growing number of article retractions, even from reputable journals. Publishing houses continue to profit, often accepting substandard work in exchange for hefty article processing charges. Instead of strengthening learning outcomes and research quality, resources are being siphoned off into global academic profit machines. A serious effort to promote genuine research is necessary, but stage-managed output makes it difficult. Consider the absurdity of schoolteachers judged by their PhD rather than their ability to engage children. Higher education institutions are falling into the same trap. We need mentors, not paper-pushers chasing metrics. Faculty who shape student learning are sidelined in hiring and appraisal because they haven’t produced a pile of low-quality papers.What message are we sending when dubious research is rewarded over genuine student engagement? It suggests that gaming the system is more valuable than meaningful teaching. The obsession with rankings ends up reducing institutional credibility to a numbers game, driven more by manipulation than improvement. Ranking becomes the ultimate validity, leading to just metric manipulations rather than genuine improvement. Many institutes inflate faculty numbers just before ranking submissions, rushing through temporary hires to improve student-faculty ratios or showcase higher qualifications. This is just one part of a larger problem.Another criticism advanced against NIRF, which the SIRF should address, is the unfair comparison between legacy institutions and newer ones. It’s hardly a level playing field. Most metrics, including placement numbers and median salaries, are susceptible to manipulation. Yet, despite numerous complaints, not a single institution has faced consequences for data misreporting. The court stayed NIRF 2025 after flagging glaring discrepancies between institutional self-assessment reports and data submitted to NIRF.The lack of employable skills among graduates is one of the country’s major concerns when it comes to education, and yet, NIRF overlooks the efforts of institutions to bridge this gap through skill development. The Union govt promotes NIRF so actively that it is a prerequisite to enjoy govt funding for research projects and eligibility to apply for deemed university status. India has the world’s largest youth population. If we fail to equip them with the right skills and mindset, it would be a missed opportunity. Our focus must shift to preparing students to be industry-ready professionals and bold entrepreneurs. Skilling is central to all these paths, alongside broader values such as democratic citizenship, critical thinking, collaboration, and social engagement.The foundation for the proposed SIRF must focus on what society needs, rely on indicators that are objective, verifiable, and quantifiable, and leave no room for manipulation. The road ahead won’t be easy, but no great victory comes without a great battle.(The writer is Vice-Chairman of the TN State Council for Higher Education)Email your feedback with name and address to southpole.toi@timesofindia.com