From ranking to readiness: A new vision for the higher education
In the competitive world of global higher education, the race for the top spot in league tables has become an obsession for universities and governments alike. From the global QS and Times Higher Education (THE) rankings to India’s National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), these metrics are often seen as the ultimate verdict on an institution’s quality. However, a growing chorus of scholars and policymakers is raising a critical question: Do these rankings tell us how good a university is today, or how prepared it is for tomorrow? There is a need to adopt a new framework that could measure the future preparedness of higher educational institutions. A new conceptual framework, titled Performance & Readiness Aligned Vision for Institutional Development (PRAVID), argues that we have been looking at institutional success through a rear-view mirror. While traditional rankings measure “how good institutions are” based on historical data, the PRAVID model seeks to measure “where institutions are headed”. This diagnostic policy tool is designed to help governments and leaders distinguish between current delivery and future direction, moving beyond the high-stakes pressure of a single league-table ranking.
The Trap of Historical Success
The literature suggests that existing evaluation frameworks-including national rankings, quality assurance systems like NAAC, and accreditation standards-primarily reward legacy strength rather than adaptive potential. These instruments often privilege historical performance, reputational capital, and quantifiable outputs such as research counts and graduate employment rates.
The problem with this approach is that rankings are inherently retrospective. They capture what an institution has already achieved, often at the expense of its long-term strategic capacity or mission diversity. As a result, many “top-tier” universities may be coasting on their historical reputation while failing to adapt to the seismic shifts of digital transformation, changing labor markets, and the need for lifelong learning.
The PRAVID Matrix
To solve this “conceptual blind spot,” the PRAVID framework proposes a two-axis diagnostic matrix. Rather than collapsing all data into a single score, it separates Institutional Performance and Outcomes (the Y-axis) from Future Readiness and Educational Vision (the X-axis).
The Institutional Performance axis measures realised outcomes such as teaching quality, student retention, and research impact. This reflects how well an institution is functioning under current conditions. Conversely, the Future Readiness axis captures latent capabilities-the institution’s strategic intent and its ability to adapt. This includes curriculum agility, digital pedagogical innovation, and engagement with industry and global ecosystems. By analysing these two dimensions together, the framework identifies four distinct institutional archetypes, each requiring a different policy approach.
The Four Archetypes of Higher Education
The PRAVID framework categorises institutions into quadrants that offer a more nuanced look at their health and trajectory:
1. Future Leaders (High Performance/ High Readiness): These are the “system anchors”. They demonstrate strong current outcomes while proactively innovating for the future. They balance stability with agility, making them prime candidates for innovation scaling.
2. Established Strengths (High Performance/ Low Readiness): These institutions are often the “darlings” of traditional rankings but face a significant “legacy trap”. While they currently produce solid results, they may be risk-averse or slow to modernize their curricula. For these schools, the PRAVID framework serves as a warning, prompting them to invest in renewal.
3. Emerging Transformers (Low Performance / High Readiness): Often newer or reform-oriented institutions, these schools have a clear vision and high digital capacity but have not yet seen these efforts translate into traditional outcome metrics.
4. Foundational Focus (Low Performance / Low Readiness): These institutions struggle with both current delivery and future planning, often due to resource scarcity or governance challenges.
Why This Matters for Public Policy
For years, policymakers have relied on “one-size-fits-all” evaluation tools to inform funding and reform initiatives. However, when performance and readiness are conflated, the resulting policy interventions are often ill-suited to an institution’s actual needs. The PRAVID framework offers a more diagnostic and non-punitive logic. By treating future readiness as a distinct and measurable dimension, the PRAVID framework may finally provide the lens we need to see not just where our universities have been, but where they are going.
The writer is Senior Assistant Professor, SOIL School of Business Design; views are personal
