How is it that India, a country of 1.4 billion people and one of the world’s most powerful talent engines, is invisible in the global top 100 university rankings?
In Times Higher Education, its top institution, the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), sits in the 201–250 band. In the QS World University Rankings, the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi reaches 123rd. In the Shanghai Ranking, IISc drops as low as the 501–600 range.
And that made me think. Is India failing in global rankings, or are global rankings failing India?
At face value, the conclusion seems obvious. India underperforms. But is that really true?
A story of misaligned measurement
I don’t think that this is a story of weak universities. Instead it is a story of misaligned measurement.
Global rankings are built on indicators that reflect a western model of higher education. Their metrics make sense within that system, but they make far less sense in systems like India’s, where universities are deeply tied to national development, mass education and domestic talent formation.
There are a few rankings that see things differently, though. In the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings, which measure contributions to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, India places four universities in the top 100, led by Amrita. When rankings reward societal impact, Indian institutions suddenly look very different.
And yet even that does not fully capture the story.
What the rankings don’t register
Higher education systems throughout the world play roles that most global rankings don’t register. Roles like nation building, teaching, and the creation of a domestic talent pipeline. In India the popularity of institutions like the IITs is not an anomaly. It is a system that is working exactly as intended, but not as current rankings expect.
Nationally focused data from measuresHE reinforces this point. Indian institutions outperform Asia across most measures. The real gap lies in international integration, not quality.
And when it comes to talent, universities, consultancies, tech companies and banks across the world are competing aggressively for top Indian graduates. Indian talent sits at the centre of global recruitment strategies.
The very best often stay, because institutions like the IITs and IIMs already offer what rankings struggle to measure: elite peer groups, extreme selectivity, strong career outcomes, and direct access to one of the world’s fastest-growing economies.
So what should change?
Should India internationalise more? Probably. Should it still participate in the global rankings? Absolutely. The world is interconnected, and visibility, including in the big rankings, matters.
But there also needs to be a change in rankings. Not just cut-down versions of an existing mismatch, but new metrics that recognise the wonderful diversity of global higher education.
With thanks to my co-author Benjamin Stevenin, and to measuresHE for the national data. Ranking positions are as at the time of writing.
First published on LinkedIn.
