Decoding NAAC › Criteria

8. Student Outcomes

Faculty orientation deck · draft / consultation marks
125score (Autonomous)
8/4metrics (Autonomous)
Outcomecategory

Criterion 8

Criterion 8 | Student Outcomes

Understanding the metrics · Preparing the institution

Meaning • Documents • Responsibilities • Measurement
8 baseline metrics + 0 supplementary topics

Orientation to the proposed ten-attribute reform framework. Consultation/draft marks are not final official scoring rules.

Faculty orientation edition • 23 October 2026
Source: supplied category images + Annexure B; preparation guidance is advisory.

Metric 8.1 | Placement / Employment

Part of a combined 30; no individual split

Explain verified employment outcomes of graduates. Separate job offers, accepted offers and actual joining.

Documents to prepare and maintain

  • Graduate placement register.
  • offer and joining evidence.
  • employer/graduate confirmation.

Who is responsible?

  • Placement and Career Guidance Cell.
  • departments.
  • alumni office.

Percentage of graduates Employed through campus placements or otherwise along with details of median salary

Placement / Employment | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Employed graduates ÷ eligible graduate cohort × 100 as an orientation indicator; deduplicate multiple offers and distinguish verified joining.

Draft weightage / source maximum

Part of a combined 30; no individual split

Strategic planning & Discussion

A graduate with three job offers joins one employer. Record one employed graduate, with the joining status verified.

Supporting draft metric 8.2: combined Graduate Progression Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Do not report three placements as three employed students.

Metric 8.2 | Academic Progression

Part of the same combined 30; no individual split

Explain graduates moving to further study or research. Applications and aspirations are not confirmed enrolments.

Documents to prepare and maintain

  • Admission/enrolment proof.
  • destination institution/programme details.
  • certified graduate progression list.

Who is responsible?

  • HoDs and alumni/progression coordinators.
  • Career Guidance Cell.

Percentage of graduates progressed to Higher Education/placements/employment, self- employment/entrepreneur and Research

  • Number of graduates progressed/Number of students graduates year-wise

Academic Progression | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Verified graduates enrolled in further study ÷ eligible graduates × 100; use a defined cohort and follow-up date.

Draft weightage / source maximum

Part of the same combined 30; no individual split

Strategic planning & Discussion

Establish a graduating-batch tracking and follow-up system.

Provide career guidance, higher-education counselling and entrepreneurship support.

Collect verifiable progression details through departments and alumni networks

Supporting draft metric 8.2: combined Graduate Progression Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

What barriers affect progression across programmes?

Metric 8.3 | Self-employment / Entrepreneurship

Part of the same combined 30; no individual split

Explain verified graduate enterprise, professional practice or self-employment. Training participation does not establish an operating enterprise.

Documents to prepare and maintain

  • Business/professional registration where relevant.
  • operating-activity evidence.
  • certified graduate verification.

Who is responsible?

  • Entrepreneurship/Incubation Cell.
  • alumni office.
  • HoDs.

Self-employment/ entrepreneurship Percentage of graduated students becoming entrepreneur/self-employed during the last three years

Self-employment / Entrepreneurship | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Verified self-employed graduates ÷ eligible graduates × 100; use a common cohort and avoid duplicate people in combined progression reports.

Draft weightage / source maximum

Part of the same combined 30; no individual split

Strategic planning & Discussion

Provide enterprise mentoring, business-planning workshops and start-up guidance.

Connect aspiring entrepreneurs with alumni, incubators and relevant support agencies.

Follow up graduates to document enterprise creation and continued operation

Supporting draft metric 8.2: combined Graduate Progression Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

What self-employment opportunities connect with our disciplines?

Additional topic 8.4 | Competitive Exams

Not established in the Draft

Explain student qualification in relevant competitive, professional or eligibility examinations. Distinguish appearing, qualifying stages and final selection.

Documents to prepare and maintain

  • Official results/scorecards.
  • qualifying certificates.
  • certified student examination register.

Who is responsible?

  • Competitive-exam/Career Guidance Cell.
  • HoDs.
  • students/alumni.

Percentage of graduated students qualifying in NET/SLET/GATE/UPSE/ GPAT/GMAT/CAT/CEED/ during the last three years

Competitive Exams | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Report exact examination, stage and year; do not combine unrelated examination outcomes without a stated method.

Draft weightage / source maximum

Not established in the Draft

No reliable autonomous metric-specific allocation available

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Identify relevant examinations and provide targeted guidance.

Organise preparation sessions, mock tests and mentoring.

Track examination attempts, stage-wise qualification and final outcomes separately.

Where do students need support to progress to the next stage?

Metric 8.4 | Awards / Prizes / Recognitions

15 Marks as per draft

Explain externally verified achievement in academic, cultural, sports and other extended curricular areas.

Documents to prepare and maintain

  • Award certificates and official results.
  • verified award register.
  • student/team identification.

Who is responsible?

  • Concerned clubs and committees.
  • Physical Education.
  • HoDs.

(1) No. of external Academic Awards and Recognitions received by the students in the assessment period(2) Number of awards/ medals for outstanding performance in curricular, co-curricular & extra-Curricular activities and sports at state/ regional/ national/ International events for students in the last three years (merge)

Awards / Prizes / Recognitions | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Separate individual/team awards, awarding level and event; do not count every team member as a separate team award.

Draft weightage / source maximum

15 Marks as per draft

No reliable autonomous metric-specific allocation available

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Orientation exercise: use real institutional example and show the primary record, the supporting evidence and the relevant approval or review.

Metric 8.5 | Enrolment Ratio

20 marks

Explain how much of the approved first-year intake is filled. Use fresh admissions and approved seat capacity for the same year.

Documents to prepare and maintain

  • Competent-authority intake approval.
  • certified first-year admission register.
  • programme-wise reconciliation.

Who is responsible?

  • Admission Committee and administrative office.
  • Principal.
  • HoDs.
  • Percentage of students admitted in first year of the program against the sanctioned seats intake during last three years
  • Total number of students admitted in first year/Total number of sanctioned seats year-wise

Enrolment Ratio | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Fresh first-year admissions ÷ sanctioned first-year seats × 100. Record programme and year; applications are not admissions.

Draft weightage / source maximum

20 marks

Strategic planning & Discussion

Illustration only: 180 fresh admissions ÷ 200 sanctioned seats × 100 = 90%.

Supporting draft metric 8.1 Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

90% intake filled is not automatically 90% of the metric marks.

Metric 8.6 | Graduation

Not Applicable to Autonomous/ Draft

Explain completion of a programme within its normal duration. Cohort completion and final-year examination pass percentage are different indicators.

Documents to prepare and maintain

  • Entry-cohort register.
  • examination and award records.
  • signed completion/pass analysis.

Who is responsible?

  • Controller of Examinations and academic office.
  • HoDs.

Percentage of students completed the program in stipulated time against the enrolment:

Pass percentage of students during last three years (Excluding backlog students)

  • Number of final year students who passed/number of final year students who appeared for the university examination
  • Number of final year students who appeared for the university examination year-wise during the last three years

Graduation | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

On-time completers from the entry cohort ÷ that entry cohort × 100. Keep final-year appeared/passed data separately.

Draft weightage / source maximum

Not Applicable to Autonomous/ Draft

No reliable autonomous metric-specific allocation available

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Illustration only: 160 of an original 200-student cohort complete on time: 80% cohort graduation.

Analyse programme-wise and course-wise results annually.

Identify difficult courses and students needing timely academic support.

Plan remedial teaching, mentoring and examination preparation

Final-year pass percentage uses a different denominator; never substitute it silently.

Metric 8.7 | Student / Alumni Learning Experience

60 Marks

Explain how learners and alumni evaluate their educational experience and how the institution responds.

Documents to prepare and maintain

  • Online Survey instrument
  • Student & Alumni Database
  • verified contact/invitation register kept privately.
  • anonymised analysis and action-taken report.

Who is responsible?

  • Feedback/Survey Committee and IQAC.
  • Alumni Association.
  • departments.

Database of all students on roll and alumni in past three years need to be prepared as per data template and shared with NAAC along with the online submission of QIF

Student / Alumni Learning Experience | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Record survey coverage, response rate and findings; internal satisfaction results are not automatically the external assessment score.

Draft weightage / source maximum

60 Marks

Strategic planning & Discussion

Strengthen everyday teaching, assessment feedback, mentoring and student support.

Maintain accurate student and alumni contact records.

Use internal feedback to identify gaps and document improvements

Through direct Survey Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

What do students actually experience in our classrooms and support systems? Which recurring concerns remain unresolved? What improvements can alumni feedback help us prioritise?

Weightage reference

  • Placement / EmploymentPart of a combined 30 marks. ; no individual split.
  • Academic ProgressionPart of the same combined 30; no individual split.
  • Self-employment / EntrepreneurshipPart of the same combined 30; no individual split.
  • Competitive ExamsPending confirmation.
  • Awards / Prizes / RecognitionsPending confirmation. 15 marks.
  • Enrolment Ratio20 marks.
  • GraduationPending confirmation. May be not applicable or will be included in 20marks.
  • Student / Alumni Learning ExperiencePending confirmation. 60 marks.

Faculty preparation checklist

Prepare the evidence

  • Use approved, dated and signed academic/administrative records.
  • Prepare a concise explanation supported by the relevant primary records.
  • State the period, cohort, unit and counting method for numerical claims.
  • Use source-specified periods only where confirmed; verify the final applicable window.

Coordinate responsibility

  • Lead coordinator consolidates the criterion; departments supply subject records.
  • HoDs verify academic claims; relevant offices verify finance, HR, exams and admissions.
  • Academic Council/Board of Studies approvals support curriculum decisions.
  • Protect personal data and use anonymised summaries for sensitive records.

Orientation discussion and immediate institutional actions

Questions for faculty and departments

  • Which existing activity demonstrates this criterion most convincingly?.
  • Which claim currently lacks an approved document or primary record?.
  • Where are counts inconsistent between departments and central offices?.
  • Which improvement needs an academic or administrative decision?.

Actions after the orientation

  • Nominate criterion and metric-level faculty/office leads.
  • Prepare a document inventory and identify genuine gaps.
  • Correct the academic/administrative practice—not just the report wording.
  • Ask IQAC to confirm the applicable framework, periods and scoring source before submission.