UGC major boost to Physical and Sports Education, restores 3 year Course

UGC while considering specification of new degrees in Physical and Sports Education in exercise of its powers u/s 22 of the UGC Act, 1956 has recently approved recommendations of a committee and has agreed to introduce Bachelor of Physical Education and Sports (BPES) and Maters of Physical Education and Sports [MPES] in the list of specification of degrees.

In the year, 1966, vide Notification dated 27.04.1966, UGC had introduced BPE [Bachelor of Physical Education] and MPE [Masters of Physical Education] is list of specification of degrees. UGC in the year 2004, recommended phasing out these degrees from the academics.

In the specification of degrees published in July 2014, UGC had restructured BPE [Bachelor of Physical Education] and MPE [Masters of Physical Education] and prescribed new degrees, viz., BPEd and MPEd, which was result of phasing out the BPE and MPE Degrees, which started in year 2004.

Earlier, the BPE course run by several Universities in the Country was a 3 years degree course, allowing 12th Pass Students to pursue this Course. However, by amendment in July 2014, the Bachelor in Physical Education [BPEd] was prescribed as 2 year Course with Bachelor Degree as qualifying degree. This eliminated students passing 12th and aspiring in Physical Education to pursue their pursuits.

In addition, to BPES, the UGC has also approved MPES [Masters of Physical Education and Sports] Program. Considering that is a Master’s Degree, it will be of two years duration and will run concurrently with MPEd Degree Course.

EduLegal View:

We all welcome this step of restoration of 3 year degree course, because it is majorly after 12th only that career decisions are made. In such sense, this is really a welcome step by UGC.

But UGC should be mindful of the fact that introduction of a new degree course should generally be done at the beginning of the academic year, so that Universities/ Institutions can start admission to these courses. A delayed introduction disallows to introduce the course in the same year because of curriculum constraints.

Der Aye Lekin Durust Aye !

MHRD appoints Committee to review NET / Non-NET Fellowship Scheme

Amidst unprecedented agitation by students across the country, MHRD has decided to appoint a 5 Member Committee to look into various issues relating to NET / Non-NET based fellowship Schemes.

Background:

For over two decades, the All India National Eligibility Test (NET), a competitive examination conducted twice a year by the University Grants Commission (UGC) has been the basis for the Research Fellowships, currently almost nine thousand that enable students to pursue M.Phil and Ph.D programmes.

The Non-NET Fellowship Scheme was introduced by the UGC in 2006. It is presently limited only to fifty institutions including Central Universities and those with Potential for Excellence. Almost thirty five thousand students are presently availing of these Fellowships.

UGC in its 510th Meeting held on 07.10.2015 had considered the Report of the Expert Committee constituted to frame the Guidelines and enhancement of Fellowship Scheme to Non-NET students and decided to discontinue the NON-Net Fellowship Scheme prospectively, sparing the students, who were already getting the benefits under the Scheme.

Reaction to the Discontinuation:

The decision of discontinuation led to huge uproar in the student community in the Country with protest and demonstrations coming right on the doorsteps of UGC. It was also reported in Media that the protesting students were subjected to lathi-charge. Considering the gravity of the situation, MHRD intervened in the matter and announced to appoint a Review the entire Fellowship Scheme. As an Interim Measure to address the crisis, it stayed the decision of UGC to discontinue the Non-NET Fellowship Scheme.

MHRD Review Committee:

MHRD considering the imperative is the need to encourage and expand quality research in diverse field and with a view to improve access, quality, impact and equity in the Universities has decided to review the current research framework, efforts, opportunities, quality and output and has constituted a Committee headed by Shri Gautam Barua, Former Director, IIT Guwahati to consider various issues relating to NET / Non-NET Fellowship Scheme

The Committee will deliberate on various issues relating to the Scheme including feasibility of enhancing the number of merit based NET fellowships and bringing the benefits and opportunities of the Non-NET fellowship scheme to a larger number of Universities, including State Universities.

As the controversy is primarily related to Non-NET Fellowship, the Committee will also consider economic and other criteria for eligibility for non-NET fellowships and recommend guidelines for the selection, coverage, award, and administration of the non-NET fellowships.

Other members of the Committee include Prof. Syed Bari, Prof. Kuldeep Agnihotri and Dr. Meena Chandrawarkar. The Committee will submit the Report by December 2015.

EduLegal View:

The Agenda for the Meeting, in which the Non-NET Fellowship Scheme was discontinued, reads as “To consider the Report of the Expert Committee constituted to frame the guidelines and consider enhancement of Non-NET fellowship”, ironically, instead of enhancement, which was supposed to be discussed, the decision was taken to discontinue.

First Discontinue, then Stay the Discontinuation and then a Committee to review the Discontinuation, this is not a correct approach, specially dealing with the academic environment.

An old saying goes, “Prevention is better than Cure”!

Advertising Council finds Ads of 25 Educational Institutions misleading

In July 2015, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints in 25 advertisements in the Education category relating to misleading advertisements in nature of Ranking / Award / Placement Claim / Success Claim / Skill Acquisition in Competitive Examinations.

The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) deals with complaints received from Consumers and Industry, against Advertisements which are considered as False, Misleading, Indecent, Illegal, leading to Unsafe practices, or Unfair to competition, and consequently in contravention of the ASCI Code for Self-Regulation in Advertising. ASCI is also the “Executive Arm” of the Department of Consumer Affairs handling all complaints pertaining to misleading advertisements.

The CCC found that claims in the advertisements by 25 advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions.

ASCI has banned misleading Ads by following Educational Institutions:

  1. Southern Academy Maritime Studies: The claim in the TVC, “if anybody who is willing to study in this college, can get a job as a Captain in a Ship and can earn upto 60 Lakhs per Annum”, was not substantiated and is misleading by ambiguity and exaggeration.
  1. Aakash Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. (Aakash Institute): The advertisement claims that Twins Rahul Bansal and Sahil Bansal (AIIMS-2015 ranks 23 and 40) and Yuvraj, (AIIMS-2015 rank 11) are from their coaching institute. This was false and was not substantiated.
  1. Hansa Medcell: The claim in the advertisement, “Gain specialist skills without sacrificing daily clinical practice”, is misleading since “Distance Education” cannot allow oneto gain specialist skills in gastroenterology, cardiology etc., since all these specialities involve very special procedures like OGD Scopy and Colonoscopy (Crastroenthrology) and Angiography, Angioplasty (Cardiology) etc. As per clause 7.20 of MCI Act (Amendment 2002) one can’t call oneself a specialist unless one has acquired specialist qualifications. The Medical Council does not offer recognition to distance education programmes. In addition the claim, “provide One year distance education of post- graduation programs from prestigious American college of gastroenterology John Hopkins University School of medicine”, was false and misleading by ambiguity.
  1. Shri Maharana Pratap Private ITI: The advertisement claims, “no university or institutions are valid to provide any certifications in fire and safety except Shri Maharana Pratap ITI” and “only 4 institutions in India are valid to provide fire and safety courses”, were not substantiated and were considered to be misleading by ambiguity.
  1. BSE Institute Limited: The claim in the advertisement, “Become a Professional Banker in Just Two Months”, is misleading by ambiguity, as it is offering a “Professional banking program” conducted internally and the jobs being offered were inclusive of basic functions such as Welcome Desk.
  1. National Board of Computer Education: The claims in the advertisement, “Affiliation from International Accreditation Organization (IAO), Houston, U.S.A.”, and “Affiliation from Copy Right Division under Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India”, were not substantiated with supporting proof.
  1. AAFT School of Fashion & Design: The claim in the advertisement, “The only Fashion School associated with Film Industry”, was not substantiated.
  1. Padmashri K. K. Shastri Educational Campus: The use of Padmashree prefix before a name as used in the advertisement confers an unjustified advantage on the advertised product (Educational Campus) as such reference. This violates Chapter I.3 of the ASCI code.
  1. CL Educate Ltd: The claim in the advertisement, “61/100 toppers in CLAT ’15 are LSTians”, was not substantiated.
  1. Global Inc Training Centre: The claims in the advertisement, “Assured C.T.C. Rs.14K to Rs.22K per Month” and “100% Guaranteed Placement under Money Bank (OR MONEY BACK) Scheme”, were not substantiated adequately with supporting data.
  1. Rabiya Industrial Training Institute: The claims in the advertisement, “100% Job” and “The One and Only One Accredited Learning Center in State of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal & Jharkhand”, were not substantiated.
  1. The English Square: The claim in the advertisement, “Learn to speak fluent English in just 100 hours with 100% Guarantee”, was not substantiated.

Complaints against advertisements of all educational institutes listed below mostly are UPHELD because of unsubstantiated claims that they ‘provide 100% placement/AND/OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields’: 

Endeavor, Indus Early Learning Centre, Thangavelu College Engineering, Indian Institute of Medical Representative Private Limited, GCS Institute of Computer Technology, Rama Naidu Film School, Patel Computers, Red & Multimedia Education White, Shree Venkateshwara Hi-Tech Engineering College, Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Technology & Science, Career Master, Capital Infosys Institute of Hotel Management & Tourism and Brilliant Tutorial.

ASCI is recognized under ‘The Cable Television Network Rules, 1994’ which states that ‘No advertisement which violates the Code for self-regulation in advertising, as adopted by the Advertising Standard Council of India (ASCI), Mumbai, for public exhibition in India, from time to time, shall be carried in the cable service’.

EduLegaL View: 

Advertisements surprisingly have become one of most important medium to attract students recently amongst educational institutions. A career has lot of emotions attached to it. Parents make great personal sacrifices to enable their children to get the right education. Advertisements play a big role in deciding an Institution and it is required that it should be a responsible step devoid of inducements and falsehoods. 

But my issue is, what next, what is the action that will be taken against these educational institutions, who have indulged in misleading publications and advertisements and what about the students who found themselves on the wrong side relying upon the advertisements. 

There is no effective legislation in place, which deals with these situations. MHRD look into the matter and bring effective legislation to ban such ads and take effective actions against the Institutions. 

The Argument can continue!

Ravi Bhardwaj | mail@edulegal.in

SC suggests Govt. to scrap reservation / quotas in super-speciality medical courses

The Supreme Court has observed that admissions to institutions of higher education in particular medical education should be based on merit and not reservations, and urged the central government to take objective steps in eliminating reservation in super speciality medical courses. Supreme Court has made this suggestion in the general interest of the country and for improving the standard of higher education and thereby improving the quality of available medical services to the people of India.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court echoed the same feeling as was done earlier in another case by Supreme Court itself and reiterated the aspirations of others so that authorities can objectively assess and approach the situation so that the national interest can become paramount. The earlier judgement of the Court had also suggested the Government:

“We hope and trust that the Government of India and the State Governments shall seriously consider this aspect of the matter without delay and appropriate guidelines shall be evolved by the Indian Medical Council so as to keep the Super Specialities in medical education unreserved, open and free.”

The Hon’ble Court also expressed its concern on the delay in addressing the issue and observed that fond hope has remained in the sphere of hope though there has been a progressive change. The Court also felt that said privilege remains unchanged, as if to compete with eternity.

The judgment came based on a batch petitions complaining about eligibility criteria for admissions to certain courses – DM (Doctor of Medicine) and MCh (Master of Chirurgiae)- in particular, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Tamil Nadu permitted only those domiciled in these states. This means that while candidates domiciled in these states can sit for exams in other states, students from other states are barred from taking exams in these states. The petitioners had challenged these provisions on ground of violations of right of equality and equal opportunity, which has been granted in Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

National Ranking Framework Process to start from 2nd November

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) has been launched by Ministry of Human Resource Development [MHRD] to rank higher educational institutions in the country based on objective, verifiable criteria. The ranking system is expected to promote excellence in education in a competitive environment.

This Framework (NIRF) would enable parents, students, teachers, educational institutions and other stakeholders to rank institutions on the basis of a set of objective parameters and a transparent process.

The ranking framework is designed such that institutions belonging to different sectoral fields such as Engineering, Management etc. will be compared separately in their own respective peer groups. The framework will evaluate institutions on five parameters—teaching, learning and resources (TLR); research, professional practice and collaborative performance (RPC); graduation outcome (GO); outreach and inclusivity (OI); and perception (PR) of end users. Each of these has been further subdivided to comprehensively assess an institute.

Teaching, Learning & Resources: These parameters are related to the core activities of any place of learning. These are organized into the following sub-parameters: Faculty Student Ratio. Faculty Qualifications and Experience. Library, Laboratory Facilities, Facilities for Sports and Extra-Curricular Activities.

 Research, Professional Practice & Collaborative Performance: These parameters, therefore, attempt to measure the quantity and quality of research output as seen through international data bases, IPR generation and interface with industry and fellow professionals. These are organized as follows: Peer-Reviewed Publications. Citations of Research. IPR and Patents. Collaborative Work. Research Funding and Consulting.

 Graduation Outcomes: This parameter forms the ultimate test of the effectiveness of the core teaching/learning activity. These are organized as follows: Public and University Examinations, Placement, Higher Studies and Entrepreneurship. Mean Compensation Package.

 Outreach: The Ranking framework lays special emphasis on representation of women and socially challenged persons in student and/or faculty populations, and also on outreach activities of the institution. These are detailed below: Outreach, Region Diversity, Representation of Women, Socially Challenged Students, Facilities for Physically Challenged Students.

Perception: The ranking methodology gives a significant importance to the perception of the institution by its stakeholders. This will be accomplished through Stakeholder Surveys.

After the launch of the Framework, the Government has now started the process of participation of the Institution in the Framework for the Institutions, which are accredited/affiliated to the AICTE/UGC and has also made available a web-based platform the same. The process of submission and participation in the framework would begin from 2nd November 2015.

 EduLegaL View: 

Our Higher Education System currently has NAAC and NBA as Accreditation Agency, which evaluates institutions on scientific parameters. Here comes another Ranking Parameter and Process. 

Another sort of burden on the Higher Education System. Instead of developing new framework, it would have been more prudent to strengthen and consolidate the existing system of Accreditation. The CGPA achieved on Accreditation can also be used to create Rankings within the Institutions rather than asking the Institutions to participate in a new process. Government could have added parameters as given in this Framework in the existing process of accreditation.

Well the Argument continues !

Now, a law proposed to provide “Right to Skill Development” to Indian Youth

The Governing Council of NITI Aayog in its first meeting held on 8th February, 2015 decided to constitute a Sub-Group of Chief Ministers on Skill Development to address issues pertaining to human resources, especially youth and to work on scientific methods on moving towards creating a pool of skilled manpower with speed, scale, standard and sustainability.

The focus of the terms of reference of the Sub-group was on strengthening State Skill Development Missions for integrated delivery; improving private sector participation in various aspects of skill development; expanding outreach of skilling programmes, mobilizing participation in skilling; career guidance and post training placement tracking and to suggest State level innovative measures for up-scaling of pilots, best practices, dissemination and replication by the other States/UTs and financing.

The Sub-Group of Chief Ministers on Skill Development deliberated on various issues relating to improving quality, relevance, quantity, aspirations, mobility and financing of skill development and one of their major recommendation is to explore the possibility of introducing legislation on Right of Youth to Skill Development to make it mandatory on the part of the State to impart skill training to every eligible youth may be explored.

In India, we have socially enabling and empowering legislations right to information, right to education, right to food security etc. and the now time has come to give the right to skill to every youth in the country.

It was felt that the Right to Education Act, 2009 has led to an increase in the total enrolment at the primary level and reduction in the dropout rate at elementary level through showing an improvement in the retention rate. similarly, Right to Skill Development will boost the skill-based education and skill based capacity building in the country.

The idea of making law to empower India Youth with Right to Skill Development all over the country comes from a model existing in State of the Chhattisgarh, which has legislation that guarantees Right of Youth to Skill Development. Under the Chhatisgarh Act, every youth between 14 to 45 years of age has a right to receive skill development training in notified skills, subject to fulfilment of eligibility, within 90 days of demanding to District Collector. The Act is implemented by State Skill Development Authority with a Governing Council under the Chief Minister and an Executive Committee under the Chief Secretary.

It was felt that such a right-based legislation backed by robust implementation would generate greater demand, remove the low esteem attached to vocational education and encourage more young persons to seek skill training. Adequate infrastructure and resources should back this especially for less resource rich States.

EduLegaL View:

We already have Right to Education in this country. There is no doubt that legislation brings impetus to the sector and the subject, but we need more effective implementation system in our country. “Action” is problem in our country and not “enactment”.

We are a country of diversity, Skill Development has just launched in India, we should allow it to spread and make a base and then legalise it. It is more of a “voluntary association” than a “compulsive subject”.

Providing Education is part of Directives of any State Policy, which is provided in our Constitution.

What if, because of needs of Managers, we will make “Right to Management Education”, for need of doctors, which we actually need, we make “Right to Medical Education”. Is Legislation the solution ?

Ravi Bhardwaj | mail@edulegal.in

UGC fixes two-year time to clear backlog papers

Educational Institutions / Universities have been allowing courses to be completed in varying time spans. UGC with a view to maintain uniformity in the grace [span] period for completion of a degree programme has issued guidelines maximum grace period of two years beyond the scheduled date of completion. The guidelines were formulated after UGC constituted an expert committee to determine a uniform time period for completion of degree-level programmes.

The Guidelines provides that a student pursuing an undergraduate programme which normally runs for three or four years (for engineering courses), which may be further more for integrated course like 5 Year Law Course, would be given two more years to clear his back papers, leading to awarding of degree. Similarly, students at the post-graduate level would be given as many years to clear their backlog, if any, leading to award of degree.

However, the Guidelines, accommodates exceptional situation and allows the Educational Institutions to permit extension of one more year to the student to complete the backlog papers. This extension comes with the limitation that during this extended period, the student shall, however, be considered a private candidate and not be eligible for ranking.

These guidelines are subject to rules and regulations of statutory bodies and universities governing grant of degrees.

EduLegaL View:

The statue of UGC in its preamble itself prescribes “co-ordination and determination of standards” as one its main objectives, which finds its origin in Entry 66 of List 1 of the Constitution of India. This is a certainly step towards to maintain uniformity in standards.

However, the fact that it is “subject to rules and regulations of statutory bodies and universities governing grant of degrees” is my worry. Being subject would mean “it would be merely recommendation in nature and will not be mandatory”.

Also, whether these Guidelines covers, Distance Education or not, or needs to be seen?

This was also required from academic point of view as with introduction of Choice Based Credit System (CBCS), institutes need to regularly update their curriculum and a longer grace period would deprive deprive students of knowledge and skill as on the date of completing the degree course.

Ravi Bhardwaj | mail@edulegal.in

UGC Safety Guidelines are “Suggestive” and not “Mandatory”

UGC in response to huge outcry by the student community has now clarified that the safety guidelines are “suggestive” and not “mandatory”.

The new guidelines, “University Grants Commission Guidelines on Safety of Students On and Off Campuses of Higher Educational Institutions”, were issued in April, The UGC guidelines advocated the construction of walls at a certain height, barbed wires, installation of CCTV cameras, introducing a system of biometric attendance and presence of police personnel within campuses, armed security guards at gates and entry of visitors only after verification of identity among other measures. The Guidelines also stipulated that the Institution should amend their rules to incorporate the guidelines.

Students and teacher bodies have been vocal in opposing these guidelines, which prescribe these measures. Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) intervened in the stand-off between the University Grants Commission and protesting students over the safety guidelines.

UGC clarified to the MHRD that senior academicians have framed the guidelines after wide consultations with the Academic institutions, parents, students and other stakeholders and were framed for framing guidelines for safety of students after the tragedy in Himachal Pradesh. The guidelines consolidate possible measures that can be taken by HEIs to ensure safety of students.

UGC however has now eventually clarified that the security guidelines for institutions are “suggestive” and not “mandatory” and that it was re-examining the issue of setting up of police station on campus.

Advertising Council bans misleading Ads of 22 Educational Institutions

In June 2015, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints in 22 advertisements in the Education category relating to misleading advertisements in nature of Ranking / Award / Placement Claim / Success Claim in Competitive Examinations. The CCC found that claims in the advertisements by 23 advertisers were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions.

ASCI has banned misleading Ads by following Educational Institutions:

  1. Amity University: The advertisement claims, “Amity University ranked among the Top Universities in Asia by QS, a leading ranking organization”, was not substantiated.
  1. The Sagar School: The advertisement’s claim “International School Award 2014-2017”, is false, and is misleading by omission. Also, the advertisement does not fulfil the criteria laid down by the British Council for making such claims in the advertisement such as size of the logo, placement of the logo etc.

3. BYJU’s Classes: The advertisement claims, “Announcing excellent success ratio in our first IIT batch with 161 of 212 students clearing JEE Mains” and “Get classes from India’s best teachers”, were not substantiated with data. In addition, the claim “Bangalore’s Biggest Scholarship Test for 7th to 12th Class students”, was not substantiated with comparative data.

  1. Amity University: The advertisement’S claim, “Distance Learning Programmes ranked #18 worldwide by QS”, was not substantiated.
  1. CLAT Possible: The claims, “Rank 1 in CLAT & AILET. 30/71 selections in NLU. CLAT UP Rank 1 & 2” and “Rank 1 in CLAT & AILET. More than 18 students in top 60 ranks in CLAT. 30 out of 71 students selected in first list”, were not substantiated.
  1. Career Launcher: The claims in the advertisement state, “3 OUT OF 5 TOPPERS IN CLAT 2015 ARE CLSTians, 7 State Toppers & Counting”, were not substantiated.
  1. Career Launcher: The advertisement claims, “CLAT CL Nagpur Students Create History! Swarnima Mukharjee AIR 204, Shrinkhala Shikhar AIR 606, Shivani Dixit AIR 561, Darshan Gandhi AIR 1472”. These claims were not substantiated.
  1. Career Launcher: The claim in the advertisement, “10/10 top Ranks in MNLUAT (NLU, Mumbai) are LSTians”, was not substantiated.
  1. Green Valley High School: The claims, “17 Acre Lush Green Campus” and “20 students per class”, were not substantiated.
  1. Institute of Finance Banking and Insurance: The advertisement claims, “Become a Senior Officer in a Bank in just 6 Months” is misleading and was not substantiated with support data. They further claim, “Over 17,500 placed in the I.C.I.C.I bank” and “32,500 Placements since inception in September 2006”, were inadequately substantiated.
  1. Koneru Lakshmaiah Education: The claims, “The Leader in Placements”, “K.I.U Awarded Best Engineering Institute in Asia”, “918 Placements in a single day! from a single Campus”, “KLU created history with 65% Placements on Day One (2014-2015)”, “K.I.U. University Awarded at National Level- – AAAA+ – Careers 360 – 2nd – Digital Mailer – 5th- Silicon India – 6th- Dainik Bhaskar – 8th – The Pioneer”, were not substantiated.
  1. DPSG Dehradun: The claims, “DPSG – The Best CBSE Day Schools of India Now in Dehradun”, “DPS Ghaziabad ranked No.8 in the country”, were not substantiated.

Complaints were also upheld against following educational institutes because of unsubstantiated claims that they ‘provide 100% placement/ AND/ OR they claim to be the No.1 in their respective fields’: Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation (KL University), KLU University, Aishwarya Educational Trust (Audisankara Group of Institute), ANIHM Institute of Hotel Management, Nalanda Education Society, Academy of Commerce, The Institute of Education and Management, RojgarMahiti Kendra, Sun Infotech and JK Group of Institute.

The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) was established in 1985. One of the important functions of ASCI to ensure the protection of the interests of consumers in various categories. ASCI has therefore laid down guidelines with a view to achieve the acceptance of fair advertising practices in the best interests of the ultimate consumer.

UCG has made appropriate provisions against misleading advertisements under UGC [Grievance Redressal] Regulations, 2012 and has also provided for strict punitive actions, if the advertisements by educational institutions are found to be misleading which includes withdrawal of grants, withdrawal of status of University or affiliation status with the University.

EduLegaL View:

Advertisements surprisingly have become one of most important medium to attract students recently amongst educational institutions. A career has lot of emotions attached to it. Parents make great personal sacrifices to enable their children to get the right education. Advertisements play a big role in deciding an Institution and it is required that it should be a responsible step devoid of inducements and falsehoods.

But my issue is, what next, what is the action that will be taken against these educational institutions, who have indulged in misleading publications and advertisements and what about the students who found themselves on the wrong side relying upon the advertisements.

The Argument can continue!

Ravi Bhardwaj | mail@edulegal.in | + 91 9225518255

India’s 17 in Top 800 Universities of the World

In the 12th edition of the annual rankings released by ‘Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2015-16”, 17 Indian Universities have featured in list of top 800 Universities of the World.

India with 17 institutions on the list, India is now at par with its BRIC counterpart Brazil.

India has two institutions in the top 400, the Indian Institute of Science and the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay.

Other Indian institutions featuring the list:

A] 401 – 500 Category: Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and Indian Institute of Technology, Madras.

B] 501-600 Category: Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Jadavpur University and Panjab University.

C] 601-800 Category: Aligarh Muslim University, Amrita University, Andhra University, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, University of Calcutta, University of Delhi and Savitribai Phule Pune University.

The California Institute of Technology (US), the University of Oxford (UK) and Stanford University (US) are the top three institutes in the list. University of Cambridge and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) complete the top five, with Harvard University a close sixth.

India has no position in top 200 Universities of the World, which is position is enjoyed some of the other Asian Countries. The National University of Singapore holds Asia’s number one spot (26) while China’s two leading universities, Peking and Tsinghua, are at 42nd and joint 47th place, respectively. Japan has two institutions in the top 200, the University of Tokyo (43) and Kyoto University (joint 88), while South Korea has four institutions in the top 200: Seoul National University (85), Pohang University of Science and Technology (116), the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (148) and Sungkyunkwan University (153).

The 2015 ranking features universities in 70 countries. The rankings are partly based on publication and citation data from Elsevier’s Scopus, the world’s largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature, and include analytics from SciVal, Elsevier’s tool to calculate comparative research metrics. It examines 13 performance indicators to examine all the core missions of the modern global university – research, teaching, knowledge transfer and international activity.