Institute rankings have always played a major role in discussions surrounding IIT Bombay. They serve as a popular benchmark for mapping the institute’s performance, serving as an approximate metric for the quality of education, research and career opportunities, and the overall campus environment. The yearly release of these rankings often adds to this discourse. Besides potentially influencing students’ academic and career decisions, the rankings may also influence other entities across careers and academia, such as companies and contemporary institutes.

These rankings also have some implications for the administration, tracking the impact of short-term improvements, long-term development and decision-making. Regarding this, IITB, in August 2022, witnessed the introduction of a new position, Dean Strategy, who is responsible for planning important administrative decisions, eventually impacting positive growth in these rankings.

In June 2024, IIT Bombay saw a remarkable improvement in its position on the latest QS Ranking list, climbing from 149 in the 2024 edition to 118 in the 2025 edition. Along with this, the institute, in August, also saw itself regain the 3rd position in the 2024 NIRF Rankings, finishing just below IIT Madras and IISc Bangalore. Insight tried to delve deeper into the metrics involved in calculating the QS and NIRF rankings and the process of data collection. We also tried to understand the steps taken by the administration impacting the rankings by interviewing Prof. Krishna P. Kaliappan, the Dean (Strategy), Prof K V Krishna Rao, the Deputy Director (FIA), and Prof. Anurag Garg, the Associate Dean-III (IPS). In this article, we present an analysis of IITB’s performance in these rankings over time, the administration’s comments about the same and a few potential limitations of the rankings. 

QS Rankings

The QS World University Rankings, first published in 2004, was developed by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) to reflect the key aspects of the quality of academics, research and employment of universities across the world. They encompass over 1,400 universities from 104 countries and are one of the most widely recognized university rankings globally. The rankings are based on a wide array of parameters to track the performance of participating institutes. 

Here are the parameters and the respective weights according to the ranking framework¹ :

Performances Lenses	Weights
Academic Reputation	15%
Employer Reputation	10%
Faculty Student Ratio	20%
Citations per Faculty	5%
International Faculty Ratio	5%
International Student Ratio	5%
International Research Network	5%
Employment Outcomes	5%
Sustainability	5%

How is the data collected for all of these different parameters? 

When evaluating universities for their global rankings, QS employs a multi-step approach which involves gathering a wide array of data from different sources, refining the datasets to maintain fairness, and applying statistical methods to ensure consistency.

QS collects certain data directly from institutions through surveys and data submissions, where universities provide detailed information about their faculty and student populations. Universities are required to report the overall faculty and student counts, along with the number of international students and faculty. 

QS also conducts surveys globally to gather perceptions and collect data. For instance, these surveys are sent to respondents across academia and industry to identify the academic and employer reputation of institutions.

In addition to surveys, QS gathers bibliometric data of academic literature, obtained from external partners like Scopus, a database for research citations and abstracts. Such data sources provide information used for the ‘Citations Per Faculty’ and ‘International Research Network’ metrics, which look at internationally authored and cited publications.

*East Asia in the graph consists of – Japan, South Korea, HongKong, China and Taiwan

Central and Southeast Asia in the graph consists of – Malaysia, Singapore and Kazakhstan

IIT Bombay’s Performance

An important point to note is that the QS parameters present a score out of 100, found by an algorithm they devised. This implies that the top-performing university in a particular parameter will have a perfect 100 in that parameter. More details about these formulae can be found here.

QS Parameter Analysis

IIT Bombay’s performance has been improving overall, with an increase in the overall score every year. Employer reputation has been fairly constant, and the performance is good in that parameter. Academic reputation has been seeing steady growth over the years. Relatively newer parameters, including International research network and employment outcome scores, also increased this year. Additionally, we delved deeper into some of the parameters, with notable changes in scores from the previous years. The following section discusses these changes in detail. 

Citations per Faculty

The number of citations per faculty has been seeing a steady increase in the last few years. When asked about this increase, the Dean Strategy had to say, “One possible reason could be the fact that our faculty members published more papers in high-impact factor journals in the last few years, and as a result the citations have increased.” The institute further expects to see growth in this parameter due to heavy investment in research by the institute and government. “The reputed journals demand data from top-notch equipment that can be trusted and cited with confidence. Hence with better research facilities, we hope for the parameter’s automatic growth.” 

The DD FIA mentioned IITB’s status as an Institute of Eminence – IoE, which provided the institute with significant funding opportunities, out of which nearly 500 Crores has already been utilised for research equipment and related purposes. Other funding sources, such as the RIFC (Research Infrastructure Funding Committee) are adding further value to our research output as well.

Faculty Student Ratio

A constant decrease in the faculty-student ratio score has been observed over the years since 2022, which can be correlated with a higher rate of intake of students than the appointment of faculty. The optimal Faculty Student ratio for QS is 1:10 and for NIRF is 1:15, whereas we are currently standing at 1:18. On the possible challenges in improving the parameter, the Dean Strategy remarked about the accommodation provision to the faculty members.

 “Due to the shortage of houses in the residential area of campus, the newly hired faculty members have to live outside the institute. Though our attrition rate is among the lowest there may be instances when the newly appointed faculty is not happy with the seed grant funding and considers some other institute like IISc for their career. However, we believe that IITB has better instrumentation facilities than most other Indian institutes and that these can be collectively used by many faculty members.”

DD FIA also commented that IITB will soon be ready with the much-needed building infra when the new hostels, faculty staff towers, and research/academic centre buildings are up. The considerable amount of construction work going on in the institute is expected to solve infrastructural problems in the coming 3-4 years.

International Student and International Faculty Ratio

IIT Bombay has huge potential to improve its international student and faculty presence. The international student and faculty ratios have scored less than 5 out of 100. Upon conversation with DD FIA, he mentioned the motive behind this parameter is creating an inclusive environment in the university and promoting diversity. “Given the existing picture of India, we believe that IIT has a fair share of representation of India’s diversity in its students’ demographics. Hence, we are adhering to the philosophy of the parameter. However, we still recognise a scope to improve on this parameter and are trying our best” 

Regarding international faculty, the Dean Strategy said, “IITB has been putting substantial efforts into calling foreign faculty as visiting professors and guest lecturers. The problem arises during permanent faculty appointments due to several uncontrollable factors. 

However, incentives like proper housing, LTC (Leave Travel Concession), and funding could be arranged to attract foreign faculty members.”

A similar problem exists for International students, where a tuition waiver is expected from the administration. But presently, the fees for international non-exchange students is around 3 times the regular Indian residents.

Some of the other parameters’ trends for IITB are as follows:

Individual parameter scores for departments in IIT Bombay

The department-wise statistics² of 2025 QS rankings show a somewhat contrary observation to what we see in the placement statistics and JEE admission ranks. 

One of these is the IITB CSE department’s employer reputation parameter, around 80-85, which is somewhat less than that of some other departments like Civil & Structural*, Mineral and Mining*.

*QS uses these department terminologies in their dataset, which is available online.

Miscellaneous findings

The section below contains some parameters we analysed separately for the Indian universities to gauge our performance amongst the QS top rankers.

We sorted the QS rankings data of various Indian universities according to the score of Citations per faculty. The data is plotted below with the resulting ranks. This helps us gauge the performance of Indian universities on an International level, which turns out to be quite appreciable. We analysed this parameter separately as Citations-per-faculty can serve as an indicator of the quality, volume, and impact of an institute’s research recognised by professionals across the globe.

We also looked at the performance of Indian Universities’ rankings after removing the contribution of International students (5%) and International Faculties (5%) parameters from the overall score. The results match well with our expectations. With a very small proportion of international faculty members and students in the IITs and IISc, removing these parameters improved everyone’s rankings by around 30-50. IITB stands finishing under 100 if we perform well in this sphere.

Sustainability is another new factor added last year in the QS methodology. A university imbibing the notions of sustainability in its policies also guides students to make similar decisions in the future. We sorted the world universities according to this parameter. Below is the plot of the performance of Indian universities, with DU topping the chart and IITB holding the second position.

We interviewed Associate Dean III IPS, who is responsible for creating a sustainability policy, to learn his thoughts about the steps taken. He remarked:

“QS sustainability parameters include both social and environmental impacts. To create a positive environmental impact, we are taking various measures. We plan to use treated grey water to meet horticultural requirements. At campus, we have a biogas plant for wet waste treatment. Regarding garden waste, we are setting up a pilot plant to convert it to pellets. Some of the garden waste is already being used as mulch after composting.

Another effort towards sustainability is the usage of electric vehicles as a means of transport Moreover, single-use plastic ban is also imposed in the campus. However, community participation is required for successful implementation of various initiatives taken to achieve sustainability in the campus.“

NIRF Rankings:

With the world rankings gaining momentum, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in India did not figure in the top 100, and only a few IITs made it between 150 and 200. The MHRD, Government of India (GoI) launched the NIRF ranking system to create healthy competition among the HEIs in India and fund the top public and private universities (like the Institutions of Eminence) to rise as world-class institutions.³

The first ranking was released in 2016 for Universities in three subject domains: Engineering, Management, and Pharmacy. Since then, the portfolio of these rankings has increased to 16 in 2024. 

Along with adding three new domains in 2024, criteria related to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aligning with the G20 Mission LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment) are being introduced to rank institutions under the overall category.⁴

A few changes in this year’s ranking include – the removal of self-citations under “Research and Professional Practices” for all categories and subject domains, the introduction of parameters on sustainability, the implementation of multiple entry and exit and courses on the Indian Knowledge system and multiple Indian regional languages.⁴

NIRF PARAMETERS:

Parameters	Weightage	Detailed breakup (Percentage contribution in the parameter)
Teaching, Learning & Resources	30%	Student Strength (20)  Faculty Student Ratio (25)  Faculty holding a Ph.D (20)  Financial Resources & Utilisation (20)  Online Education (10) Multiple Entry/Exit, Indian Knowledge System and Regional languages (5)
Research and Professional Practice	30%	Publications (30) Citations (30)  Patents (15)  Research Projects (15)  Publication & Citation in SDG’s (10)
Graduation Outcome	20%	Placement & Higher Studies (40) University Examinations (15)  Median Salary (25) PhD Students (20)
Outreach and Inclusivity	10%	Region Diversity (30)  Women Diversity (30)  Economically and Socially Challenged Students (20)  Physically Challenged Students (20)
Perception	10%	Peer Perception: Academic Peers and Employers (100)

The data for these parameters is collected in three different ways. The university provides most of the data using its own online data capturing system (DCS), which is verified by committees within NIRF. Publications, citations and highly cited publications are sourced from Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), which are databases for research citations and abstracts. Lastly, a peer perception survey is conducted among employers, professors, and academics for the perception parameter. 

IIT Bombay’s Performance

IIT Bombay’s performance has been fairly consistent over the years, fluctuating between an overall rank of 3 and 4. 

Regarding the same, the Dean Strategy states, “Our rank can be improved to first position. For that, the data provided by IITB needs to be better collected and organised before submission. For example, despite SINE being one of the first innovation centres in any university, IITB ranked 7th in the innovation category in 2023 due to incomplete data submission under the innovation category. However, after providing the complete data, this year IIT Bombay got the first rank. Another reason pointed out by the Dean Strategy is that many PhD students graduate late, and sometimes MTech students leave after their first year for PSU (public sector undertaking) jobs, affecting the graduation numbers.

Possible shortcomings of university rankings

Even though these ranking frameworks are regarded as benchmarks to track the progress of academic institutions, they may often be accompanied by a few shortcomings such as:

1. Emphasis on Quantitative Metrics: Rankings are based on quantitative metrics such as citations, faculty-student numbers, etc. Due to their basal objectivity, they may sometimes fail to capture qualitative metrics like student satisfaction, institute culture, teaching quality, etc.

Here is what the Dean Strategy had to say on this matter. “Ranks are by-products of the institute’s output and not the actual output. The desire is to achieve excellence in academics and setting up top research and infrastructural amenities, which facilitate high-quality research being carried out IITB.”

2. Possibility of biases: The ranking methodologies might often be inspired by the innate perception of academics in the country of their origin. They might not necessarily conform to the global diversity in education. Thus, institutions from countries having the same outlook towards academia as the country of origin of these rankings might have an advantage.

3. Difference between the scope of the rankings and the institute’s vision: Depending on where the institute is situated and the kind of socio-economic audience it is catering to, the institute’s vision and the needs of its stakeholders might differ from the scope of the rankings.

As brought up by the Dean Strategy, it was understood that in the next few years, the institute plans to dedicate nearly 2000 crores to developing its infrastructure, with a major focus on providing adequate faculty housing. However, such progress might not be reflected in the rankings due to a mismatch between the institute’s vision and the scope of the rankings. 

4. Transparency: Concerns arise regarding the autonomy over deciding ranking parameters and the transparency maintained in data collection and the final score calculations. The Times Higher Education (THE) Rankings, a well-known British publication similar to QS, faced considerable scrutiny in this context. Originally published in collaboration with QS, THE has operated independently since they split in 2009. In 2020, the seven older IITs—Bombay, Delhi, Madras, Kanpur, Roorkee, and Kharagpur—boycotted THE rankings, citing transparency issues after none of these institutes was ranked among the world’s top 300 universities in the previous year.

Closing remarks 

In conclusion, while institute rankings are not without their limitations, they remain a popular benchmark of higher education worldwide, tracking the progress of institutes along their academic offerings, research capabilities, and overall campus environments. By striving for excellence in these areas, universities not only elevate their standing in the global academic community but also create an enriching atmosphere for their most significant stakeholders – students, faculty, and the broader society they serve. 

Through the conversations with the administration, Insight found that improving the World University Rankings, QS or any other, is not the sole mission while running the institute and making decisions. Though these rankings are often taken at face value, we believe that individuals should form their opinions about an institute and make informed decisions by conducting their analysis. It’s essential to consider factors that align with personal priorities, such as academic strengths, research opportunities, campus culture, and overall student experience, rather than relying solely on rankings. By doing so, prospective students and stakeholders can make choices that truly reflect their unique needs and aspirations, ensuring a more fulfilling academic journey.

Sources

1. https://support.qs.com/hc/en-gb/sections/360005689220-Lenses-and-Indicators
2. https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/indian-institute-technology-bombay-iitb
3. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED622528.pdf 
4. https://www.nirfindia.org/nirfpdfcdn/2024/pdf/Report/IR2024_Report.pdf 
5. https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/indian-institute-technology-bombay-iitb#:~:text=Rankings%20%26%20ratings,-RANKINGS&text=Indian%20Institute%20of%20Technology%20Bombay%20(IITB)%20is%20one%20of%20the,QS%20World%20University%20Rankings%202025

Editorial Credits: Adarsh Prajapati, Kumud Mantri, Taniishq Kadam

6