In the NIRF ranking frameworks, Graduation Outcomes carries a fifth of an institution's total score. Its largest components look at the share of graduates who were placed or went on to higher studies, and at their median salary, averaged over the previous three years.
Each discipline's framework sets out its own sub-parameters and weights, so check the current year's document for yours. The practical point is the same everywhere: the quality of your ranking submission depends on placement records you've kept for three seasons.
Why end-of-season collection fails
When placement data is collected only for the report, three problems show up every year:
- Salary figures are missing or inconsistent, because offers were recorded without CTC, or with CTC in different formats.
- Students who chose higher studies aren't recorded, so they look like unplaced graduates.
- Older seasons can't be reconstructed, because the coordinator who kept the sheet has moved on.
What to capture, at the moment it happens
- For every offer: company, role, offer date, and annual compensation in one consistent format.
- Whether the student accepted, and which offer, if they had more than one.
- For students not seeking placement: higher studies, entrepreneurship or other, with evidence.
- The student's program and graduating batch, so outcomes can be reported per program.
Keep three seasons, not one
Because NIRF looks back over three years, the habit that matters most is retention. Archive each season with its definitions, rather than overwriting last year's sheet. When the next submission comes around, the data is already there.
In FabScreen, offers and outcomes are recorded as each drive closes, against the same student record the drive used. Season reports pull from those records, and past seasons stay on the platform. Whatever system you use, the goal is the same: the ranking submission should be an export, not an investigation.