Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Corrigendum:Shangai Rankings 2016:Poor Performance of Indian Universities


Affiliations
1 SGGS World University, Fatehgarh Sahib 140 406, India
 

This correspondence was based on the 15 June Global Ranking in Engineering & Technology. The Shanghai Rankings ARWU Report published on 15 August show overall ranking of Universities including all subjects; hence some mismatch between the two is reflected in my note also. For example, the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru is shown to occupy 225th position in the Engineering & Technology Report of 15 June but it ranks 325 in the ARWU Report of 15 August. The Indian Institutes of Technology (Kharagpur, Bombay, Delhi, Kanpur and Madras) find a place in the 15 June Report but in the overall ranking (ARWU) Report of 15 August, none of the Indian IITs or Universities are ranked among the top 500. So the overall situation of Indian Institutions is dismal compared with my report already published.
User
Notifications
Font Size

Abstract Views: 264

PDF Views: 71




  • Corrigendum:Shangai Rankings 2016:Poor Performance of Indian Universities

Abstract Views: 264  |  PDF Views: 71

Authors

Hardev Singh Virk
SGGS World University, Fatehgarh Sahib 140 406, India

Abstract


This correspondence was based on the 15 June Global Ranking in Engineering & Technology. The Shanghai Rankings ARWU Report published on 15 August show overall ranking of Universities including all subjects; hence some mismatch between the two is reflected in my note also. For example, the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru is shown to occupy 225th position in the Engineering & Technology Report of 15 June but it ranks 325 in the ARWU Report of 15 August. The Indian Institutes of Technology (Kharagpur, Bombay, Delhi, Kanpur and Madras) find a place in the 15 June Report but in the overall ranking (ARWU) Report of 15 August, none of the Indian IITs or Universities are ranked among the top 500. So the overall situation of Indian Institutions is dismal compared with my report already published.


DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv111%2Fi5%2F779-779