Relevant to the following courses of the PG programme M.Sc. in Quantitative Finance

• Credit Risk Management
• Market Risk Management

Financial risk means unsystemic risk e.g. credit risk and systemic risk e.g. market risk.  Generally credit risk management and market risk management are covered in post graduate programmes. A student having learnt management of these two risks can seek employment in commercial banks, investment banks, development banks, development funding institutions, non-bank financial companies, broking houses, corporate group treasuries, regulatory institutions, self regulatory institutions etc.

Ranking of a course is inclusive in ranking of a university and its programmes. Ranking of a university means comparing a degree programme or other programmes like diploma programmes and certificate courses offered by a university with the same or similar programme offered by other universities. Ranking of a programme is by and large correlated with overall ranking of a university.

Ranking is an outcome of rating. Rating is a symbol or a symbolic phrase with an underlying numerical score. The aforesaid numerical score can be an average of several other scores, just like CGPA is the average of the grade points obtained in different subjects but unlike CGPA, which is the simple average in a flat structure, the average score in the case of rating is a weighted average of the scores of several categories e.g. parameters, areas, criteria, pillars, and indicators in a pyramidal structure, where each of these categories has a number of underlying sub-categories and the individual score of a category is again the weighted average of the underlying sub-categories. In the case of rating of universities, first the universities are classified in groups in terms of (a) ownership like government, private sponsor or trust or public-private partnership, (b) source of funds, i.e. whether funded by government, private sponsorship or self financing and (c) the mode of establishment, i.e. whether by a state legislature, by the central legislature/parliament or by a declaration under section 3 of UGC Act as deemed university.  Generally there is a positive correlation between (a) and (b), e.g. a university without a private sponsor has access to grants from the government. These provisions are mentioned in the relevant Act.

There are several ranking agencies in India and abroad. In India there are two categories of such agencies: (a) public and (b) private. Public agencies are (i) NAAC and (ii) NIRF.

(i) National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) – NAAC is a national accreditation agency established by the Government of India in 1994 as a part of University Grants Commission with a view to taking care of quality and relevance of higher education in India offered by universities, colleges and autonomous institutions. Based on seven criteria and several indicators under each criterion totaling to thirty four in number, it awards grades in the combinations of the letters ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’, something similar to the way the credit rating agencies like Standard and Poor, Moody’s and Fitch rate the sovereigns, firms and the financial securities issued by these entities. Curricula of the courses of the programmes offered by the universities find their places in Criterion I of NAAC grading.

(ii) National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) – NIRF is launched in 2015 in order to upgrade the higher education institutions to world ranking. The ranking originates from scores of five parameters and the metrices under each of these parameters totaling to sixteen. Curricula of the courses of the programmes offered by the universities do not find direct places here.

(b) There are a couple of private agencies ranking Indian universities. The notable among them are

(i) Outlook-icare: It ranks the universities and other higher education institutions  based on total five hundred score consisting of hundred for each of the five parameters where each parameter has two underlying indicators. Curricula of the courses of the programmes offered by the universities do not find direct places here.

(ii) Times Higher Education: It ranks the universities in different countries based on the percentage scores of five areas where each area has underlying multiple performance indicators totaling to thirteen. Curricula of the courses of the programmes offered by the universities do not find direct places here.

(iii) India Today: It covers four areas in the ranking process. The area named ‘Quality of Academic Input’ reflects directly on the curriculum of a course.

(iv) Quacquarelli Symonds (QS): It ranks universities based on reputation and research.  

The parameters/areas and the underlying indicators used in the methodologies of ranking universities by the private agencies seem to be closer to NIRF’s methodology than to NAAC’s. While the curriculum of a university finds place explicitly in the methodology of NAAC, the value of the curriculum reflects on the objectives and outcomes in the methodologies of NIRF and private agencies generally. The objectives of a course are connected to the value of the course embedded in the quality of the teacher in terms of her research, citations and relevance to the industry or contemporary world and mode of delivery, i.e. communication, clarity, quality of study material and doubt clearing. The outcomes appear in the form of the learner’s employability or competitiveness for higher studies.

Hence in line with NIRF, we can design as follows the following rating methodology of the courses on financial risk management as part of the PG programme offered by a school/faculty of a university

1. Teaching Learning Resources (100%)

• Teacher /Student ratio (25%)
• Teacher’s qualification and experience in financial risk and related topics (35%)
• Library & other academic facilities (40%)

2. Research on financial risk (100%)

• Publications on financial risks (45%)
• Citations (45%)
• IPR/Patent/software/exel format design (10%)

3. Course outcome (100%)

• Student performance in university examination (50%)
• Student performance in examination/interview for recruitment or higher studies (50%)

4. Inclusion (100%)

• Education to non-regular candidates like working executives (25%)
• Representation of students from other states/countries (25%)
• Representation of genders in both of teachers and students (25%)
• Representation of economically and socially weaker students (25%)

5. Student perception (100%)

• Syllabus coverage (20%)
• Class interaction (20%)
• Clarity of information (20%)
• Availability of study material (20%)
• Level of practical exercise (20%)

So we can rate a course out of five hundred points in terms of five parameters and seventeen indicators relevant to the nature of the topics in the course