1. Introduction: When the Campus Meets the Mirror - Revised NBA SAR 2025
You’ve submitted the SAR.
The calendar is set.
The Peer Team is arriving.
Now comes the moment most campuses fear, fake… or finally face.
But here’s a truth few will tell you after revamped SAR 2025:
The Peer Team is not coming to catch you.
They’re coming to understand you.
This part is your guide to what assessors really look for—and how to prepare your institution to be seen as it truly is.
2. The Most Misunderstood Part: Peer Visit ≠ Audit
It’s not a fault-finding mission.
It’s not a checklist inspection.
It’s a holistic academic evaluation.
Assessors are asking:
Is this system genuine?
Is it sustainable?
Do the people here believe in it?
That’s what Revised NBA SAR 2025 has shifted toward:
Culture > Compliance.
3. The 5 Things Assessors Observe Closely
1. Faculty Understanding of OBE
They’ll interact.
They’ll probe.
And they’ll know instantly if your faculty has attended a training or internalized the concept.
Prep Tip: Every faculty should be able to explain: – CO-PO mapping
– CO attainment evidence
– How a lesson connects to WK or SDG
– How they redesigned assessments based on past attainments
2. Student Awareness and Involvement
Are students clueless? Or confident?
Peer Teams often ask: – What are your Program Outcomes?
– What did you learn from your Capstone Project?
– What skills did your internship give you?
– What SDG does your project address?
Prep Tip: Hold peer group discussions, mock Q&As, and reflection sessions before the visit.
3. Infrastructure Supporting Academic Vision
It’s not about big buildings.
It’s about facilities aligned to curriculum.
– Is there a lab for each course where practicals are claimed?
– Is there space for student innovation, research, discussion?
– Is the library digital and updated?
Prep Tip: Walk the assessors through the “Academic Journey” instead of a photo tour.
4. Data Consistency Across Departments and SAR
This is where many get exposed.
If your faculty says something different from what the SAR claims— your credibility tanks.
Prep Tip: Cross-verify all numbers—SFR, attainment values, MoU activity, FDPs, etc.—before submission and visit.
5. Visible Impact, Not Hidden Files
NBA assessors have seen enough files to know when it’s real.
They look for:
– Continuous documentation
– Live dashboards or trackers
– Student displays of project outcomes
– Digital evidence (Google Forms, Notion logs, SDG maps)
Prep Tip: Showcase real initiatives, posters, prototypes—not folders.
4. Red Flags Assessors Watch For
MoUs with no activity
Same faculty name across multiple roles with no clarity
Syllabus unchanged in years
FDPs attended with no post-learning impact
No mapping of PO to WK
Ethics and sustainability only in theory, not in practice
Students unaware of CO-PO-SDG linkage
Course files created just before the visit
Fix Tip: Stop the cover-up culture. Start real-time tracking—semester by semester.
5. What to Train Your Faculty & HoDs For
How to answer questions with outcome focus
How to present their own subject’s CO-PO-SDG alignment
How their assessments map to Bloom’s Taxonomy
How their research or projects solve real-world problems
How to showcase student feedback & improvement
I’ve included mock peer-interaction questions and evaluator rubrics in my book — a great resource to rehearse with teams.
6. The Golden Rule of Peer Visits
The assessors don’t expect you to be perfect.
But they do expect you to be:
Honest
Aligned
In progress with systems
Open to improve
And above all—transparent.
If you show intent and effort, even with gaps, they respect it.
If you hide or fake it, they sense it in the first 30 minutes.
7. Understanding the Final Evaluation: Grades, Marks, and What They Really Mean
Yes, the visit ends with marks.
But those marks reflect years of effort, or lack of it.
The NBA Evaluation is now structured around 9 Criteria, Each with specific marks and a grading scale:
Grade Levels Assigned by Evaluators:
Grade | Percentage Achieved | Meaning |
Y | 75% and above | Meets or exceeds expectations |
C | 60% to <75% | Compliant, but needs strengthening |
W | 40% to <60% | Weak, major improvements needed |
D | Below 40% | Deficient |
Department/Program Specific Criteria (Total: 880 Marks)
Criteria | Max Marks |
Outcome-Based Curriculum | 120 |
Outcome-Based Teaching Learning | 120 |
Outcome-Based Assessment | 120 |
Students’ Performance | 120 |
Faculty Information | 100 |
Faculty Contributions | 120 |
Facilities and Technical Support | 100 |
Continuous Improvement | 80 |
*These are graded individually by the peer team evaluators based on on-site observation, interviews, documents, and consistency with the SAR.
Institute Level Criteria (Total: 120 Marks)
Criteria | Max Marks |
Student Support System and Governance | 120 |
This part is evaluated by the Chairperson, with specific attention to 9.8 (Learning Resources) and 9.13 (Faculty Performance System) per program.
Final Score = Sum of All Criteria (1000 Marks)
Total Grade is then derived based on:
– Number of Y (strong), C (compliant), W (weak), D (deficient)
– Consistency of performance across all criteria
– Justifications provided in "Remarks" column by the Peer Team
8. Accreditation Outcomes – 6 Years vs 3 Years: What NBA Really Looks For
So you’ve submitted your SAR.
The peer team has visited.
The scores are in.
But what determines whether your program gets 6 years, 3 years, or worse — no accreditation at all?
Here’s where most colleges get it wrong.
NBA doesn’t just look at marks.
It looks at academic integrity, faculty depth, student outcomes, and sustainability of systems.
And to remove the guesswork, here’s the official benchmark table for both 6-year and 3-year accreditation eligibility under the Revised NBA SAR 2025.
Use this as your internal checklist before you apply.
Eligibility Comparison Table: 6-Year vs. 3-Year Accreditation under Revised NBA SAR 2025
Criterion | 6-Year Accreditation | 3-Year Accreditation |
Overall Grades Across Criteria | No D (Deficiency) or W (Weakness); Minimum 6 Y (Fully Compliant); Remaining C (Concerns) allowed | No D (Deficiency); Minimum 3 Y (Fully Compliant); Remaining C or W allowed |
Faculty with PhD | ≥ 30% of required faculty (avg. of CAY and CAYm1) | ≥ 20% of required faculty (avg. of CAY and CAYm1) |
Student–Faculty Ratio (SFR) | ≤ 20:1, averaged over CAY, CAYm1, and CAYm2 | ≤ 25:1, averaged over CAY, CAYm1, and CAYm2 |
Professor/Associate Professor Availability | Case 1: Dept without multiple UG programs or allied Depts must have: • 2 Professors or 1 Professor + 1 Assoc. Professor with PhD Case 2: Dept with multiple UG programs must have: • Same as above PLUS N Professors/Assoc. Professors across N other UG programs (with PhD, CAY & CAYm1) Note: No exemptions for new programs | Same as 6-Year requirements BUT: Exclude UG programs that have been running less than 3 years (CAY & CAYm1) from the additional faculty requirement |
Head of Department (HoD) | Regularly appointed with PhD in CAY | Regularly appointed with PhD in CAY |
So Where Do You Stand?
If your campus hits the 6-Year benchmarks, congratulations — you’ve built a strong foundation.
If you fall short but meet the 3-Year threshold, it’s a chance to grow, reflect, and apply again with confidence.
But if your data doesn’t check either box — pause.
Fix.
Then apply.
Because under the Revised NBA SAR 2025, there’s no room for shortcuts or showmanship.
Need internal audit templates to verify if you qualify?
Email mail@deepeshdivakaran.com — I’ll share working models used across top campuses.
Need editable course files, mock evaluator questions, or CO-PO attainment formats?
Email: mail@deepeshdivakaran.com — and I’ll send you real working models.
And if you haven’t already — my book “Outcome-Based Education: A Practical Guide for Higher Education Teachers” includes self-assessment formats for SFR, PO-WK mapping, faculty strength, and more.
Stay tuned as we continue to refine and expand this guide, ensuring that every institution can achieve real excellence—not just accreditation compliance.
Thanks for diving into this article! If it sparked some ideas or gave you value, why not take the next step?
Know More about me: Click here
Know more about my work: Click here
Subscribe to my website for more thought-provoking content and resources: www.deepeshdivakaran.com/subscribe
Buy my highly acclaimed book on Outcome Based Education, now used by 1000+ Institutes: Buy It Here at Special Author Price
Follow my NEP 2020 newsletter for exclusive insights into education reform: Subscribe Here
Download my free NEP 2020 Guides for in-depth insights into education policy: Download Now
Want to have a conversation or ask a question? You can call me or WhatsApp me directly at +91 8086015111.
Prefer email? Drop me a line at mail@deepeshdivakaran.com.
Your thoughts and feedback are always appreciated. Let's shape the future of education together!
Stay Inspired, Stay Informed.
Comments