The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) is not a document — it’s your institution’s academic blueprint, performance record, and commitment to Outcome-Based Education, all rolled into one.

With the introduction of the NBA SAR 2025 (GAPC Version 4.0), the entire structure, evaluation weightage, and philosophy behind the SAR have evolved — especially for Tier 2 engineering colleges. What was once heavily theoretical is now practical.

What was vague is now rubric-based.

And what was static has become dynamic — reflecting NEP principles, SDGs, and national digital readiness.

In this article, we decode the major structural shifts, additions, and reassignments between the old (2015) and new (2025) SAR formats — so you know what’s changed, what stayed the same, and where you need to invest new energy and evidence.

In Part 1 of this series, we explored the critical Pre-Qualifier changes introduced in NBA SAR 2025 for Tier 2 colleges. If you missed Click here.

Access GAPC Version 4.0:

Major Structural Shifts – What’s Changed in NBA SAR 2025

Here’s the big picture before we dive into each criterion:

Element	2015 SAR	2025 SAR
Total Criteria	10	9 (Merged/Restructured)
Max Marks	1000	1000
Vision, Mission, PEOs	In Criterion 1	Moved & Reweighted
SDG Alignment	Not Present	Newly Introduced
Industry-Institute Engagement	Light	Expanded & Detailed
APAAR, Digital ID Tracking	Not Present	Embedded via APAAR & MOOC tracking
CO-PO Mapping	Static Table	Linked to Rubric-Based Assessment
Faculty FDPs, MOOCs	Mentioned Lightly	Quantitatively Assessed
Capstone Projects	Not Tracked	Scored Separately (25 Marks)

Removed Criteria in NBA SAR 2025 – What’s No Longer Evaluated

While the 2025 SAR adds significant new elements — especially around SDGs, MOOC certifications, and capstone projects — it also removes or merges several old criteria that were either redundant, difficult to assess uniformly, or no longer aligned with NBA’s forward-looking, outcome-based model.

Here’s a curated list of criteria that have been completely removed from the 2025 SAR:

Criterion 5 (Old SAR): Faculty Innovations

5.5. Innovations by the Faculty in Teaching and Learning – 20 Marks

Removed in 2025 SAR. Now absorbed indirectly under Outcome-Based Teaching-Learning and Faculty Contributions.

Criterion 7 (Old SAR): Continuous Improvement

7.3. Improvement in Placement, Higher Studies and Entrepreneurship – 10 Marks
7.4. Improvement in the Quality of Students Admitted to the Program – 10 Marks

Now merged or implied under Criterion 4 (Students’ Performance) and Criterion 9 (Student Governance & Support).

**Buy my book on 'Outcome Based Education (OBE)'**

Criterion 8 (Old SAR): First-Year Faculty and Outcomes

These were detailed tracking segments focused on first-year delivery, now completely removed:

8.2. Qualification of Faculty Teaching First-Year Common Courses – 5 Marks
8.4. Attainment of Course Outcomes of First-Year Courses – 10 Marks
- 8.4.1. Assessment processes used – 5 Marks
- 8.4.2. Record of attainment of COs – 5 Marks
8.5. Attainment of Program Outcomes from First-Year Courses – 20 Marks
- 8.5.1. Evaluation of PO/PSO – 15 Marks
- 8.5.2. Actions Taken Based on PO Evaluation – 5 Marks

The focus has shifted to program-level outcomes starting from the second year onwards. First-year evaluation is now considered foundational, not outcome-based.

Criterion 9 (Old SAR): Student Support

9.4. Self-Learning Initiatives – 5 Marks
9.7. Co-curricular and Extra-Curricular Activities – 10 Marks

Now replaced by structured evaluation of MOOC/SWAYAM certifications and case study-based learning (Criterion 2).

Criterion 10 (Old SAR): Governance, Institutional Support and Financial Resources

10.1.1. Vision and Mission of the Institute – 5 Marks

This has now been absorbed under Criterion 1 (Vision, Mission & PEOs) for departments only.

10.4.1. Quality of Learning Resources – 10 Marks
10.4.2. Internet Connectivity – 10 Marks

These are now embedded implicitly under Criterion 7 (Facilities & Technical Support), without separate marks.

Why These Were Removed

Overlaps: Some items were merged under broader, rubric-based evaluation parameters.
Low Differentiation: Criteria like internet speed or library quality had marginal impact on graduate attributes in modern delivery models.
Lack of Standardized Evidence: NBA struggled to uniformly evaluate self-learning, innovations, and co-curricular activity data across institutions.
Refocus on Measurable Outcomes: The 2025 SAR is designed to reward institutes that can quantify learning outcomes, employability, sustainability alignment, and institutional transparency.

Key Takeaway: Focus Has Shifted from Activities to Outcomes

If your institution had strong documentation for these now-removed sections, don’t discard them. Instead:

Re-map them to relevant new criteria (e.g., faculty training to Criterion 6, infrastructure to Criterion 7)
Use them as supplementary evidence during the NBA team visit, even if not directly scored
Recognize that NBA is now more interested in impact than intention

No Change, Just Relocated – Criteria from SAR 2015 Retained in SAR 2025

While the NBA SAR 2025 introduced several new criteria and removed many old ones, it also preserved a number of core metrics from the 2015 SAR.

These metrics continue to play a critical role in assessing program quality but have now been repositioned under different headings or renumbered criteria.

This indicates that while the NBA is evolving structurally, it still values legacy indicators of academic performance, faculty strength, and student outcomes.

Below is a list of these "carried forward" elements that have remained conceptually the same, with minimal to no change in weightage or interpretation:

List of Unchanged Criteria – Reused from 2015 to 2025 (Renumbered)

NBA SAR 2025	Equivalent from NBA SAR 2015	Remarks
1.1.1. State the Vision and Mission of the Institute and the Department (05)	1.1. State the Vision and Mission of the Department and Institute (5)	No change – just renumbered
1.1.2. State PEOs of the Program (05)	1.2. State the Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) (5)	No change – only split in structure
2.2. Quality of Student Capstone Project (25)	2.2.3. Student Projects (25)	Retained as-is
4.1. Enrolment Ratio in the First Year (20)	4.1. Enrolment Ratio (20)	Same scoring logic
4.3. Academic Performance of First-Year Students (10)	8.3. First Year Academic Performance (10)	No change in criteria or marks
4.7.1. Professional Societies/Chapters/Clubs (05)	4.6.1. Same (5)	Same criteria
4.7.2. Students’ Participation in Professional Events (10)	4.6.3. Same (10)	No change
4.7.3. Departmental Publications (05)	4.6.2. Same (5)	Retained fully
5.1. Student-Faculty Ratio (30)	5.1. Student-Faculty Ratio (30)	Same formula and score
5.4. Visiting/Adjunct Faculty/Professor of Practice (10)	5.9. Visiting/Adjunct/Emeritus Faculty (10)	Name slightly updated, logic retained
6.2.2. Development Activities (10)	5.7.3. Development Activities (10)	Carried forward
7.3. Lab Maintenance and Ambience (10)	6.3. Lab Maintenance and Ambience (10)	Identical
7.4. Safety Measures in Labs (10)	6.5. Safety in Labs (10)	Unchanged
8.1.2. PO Attainment Actions (20)	7.1. Same as “Action Taken Based on Evaluation of POs & PSOs” (20)	Fully retained
9.1. First Year SFR (05)	8.1. First Year SFR (5)	Same wording and scoring
9.2. Mentoring System (05)	9.1. Mentoring (5)	Retained
9.3.1. Feedback and Corrective Measures (10)	9.2. Feedback & Reward (10)	Only renumbered
9.5. Training and Placement Support (10)	9.5. Same (10)	Identical
9.6.2. Transparency & Public Info (05)	10.1.5. Transparency and Public Info (5)	Same expectation, shifted criteria

Why This Section Matters

For Teams Updating SAR Files: Knowing what hasn’t changed helps streamline documentation, especially if your previous cycle had these sections well-prepared.
For Internal Committee Training: You can retain existing templates, student performance dashboards, and feedback systems already aligned with these indicators.
For Evidence Compilation: You can reuse previously accepted formats for these points — just update the year and restructure placement under new criterion numbers.

Assessor Insight: Stability Reflects Continuity

The NBA intentionally retained these key indicators because they:

Offer long-term comparability across institutions
Reflect essential educational health metrics (like SFR, mentoring, placements)
Encourage continuity and consistency in institutional improvement

While other areas evolved — especially with SDGs, MOOCs, APAAR, and sustainability-driven teaching — these metrics continue to anchor the SAR as familiar, measurable benchmarks.

Marks Restructured; Expectations Elevated – A Deep Dive into Criterion-Level Changes in NBA SAR 2025

It's Not Just About New Criteria, It’s Also About Reweighted Priorities

While the NBA SAR 2025 for Tier 2 engineering colleges introduces new criteria like SDG integration, capstone tracking, MOOCs, and APAAR-aligned faculty data, it has also quietly done something equally important — it has redistributed the weightage of marks across the 9 criteria.

Some sections have been expanded, some pruned, and others consolidated.

This isn’t just a cosmetic reshuffle. It reflects NBA’s deeper strategic shift: from process-heavy narratives to outcome-oriented, evidence-backed practices.

Why This Matters:

A 25-mark loss or gain in a criterion can dramatically swing your final score.
Reductions indicate NBA is simplifying what it no longer deems high-impact.
Increases mean the criterion now carries more weight in your accreditation potential and must be evidence-rich.

Summary Table: Marks Restructured in NBA SAR 2025

Criterion	Marks in 2015 SAR	Marks in 2025 SAR	Key Change
Criterion 1: Outcome-Based Curriculum	120	120	Internal weightage shifted
Criterion 2: Teaching-Learning	125	120	Weightage reduced in some areas
Criterion 3: Outcome-Based Assessment	150	120	Several mark reductions in CO assessment
Criterion 4: Students’ Performance	125	120	Slight redistribution; less on raw scores
Criterion 5: Faculty Information	100	100	No change in total, but internal reshuffle
Criterion 6: Faculty Contributions	100	120	Increased focus on development, FDPs, research
Criterion 7: Facilities & Support	100	100	Labs gained more weight
Criterion 8: Continuous Improvement	80	80	Reworded, not reweighted
Criterion 9: Student Support & Governance	100	120	Expanded to include transparency, governance

How to Read the Changes

Each criterion will now be interpreted as:

Marks Increased: Expect stronger evidence demands, structured proofs, and multi-year comparisons
Marks Decreased: You can de-prioritize deep reporting but not skip it — foundational value remains
Marks Reassigned Internally: Split or combined within sub-parts — weight may be reduced in one section but compensated in another

Next Step: Criterion-by-Criterion Breakdown

We’ll now break down each criterion in detail:

Show what the original 2015 mark allocations were
Highlight what was added, merged, or removed in 2025
Analyse what kind of content evidence will now be expected

Criterion 1: Outcome-Based Curriculum (120 Marks)

This criterion emphasizes curriculum planning and alignment with institutional vision, PEOs, and program outcomes.

Sub-Criterion	Marks (2015)	Marks (2025)	Change & What It Means
Process of Defining Vision, Mission and PEOs	25	15	🔻 Marks reduced by 10 – Keep it concise, process-driven
Dissemination of Vision, Mission and PEOs	10	5	🔻 Marks reduced by 5 – Visual proof is enough
Mapping of PEOs with Department Mission	15	10	🔻 Marks reduced by 5 – Keep matrix clear and justified

Criterion 2: Outcome-Based Teaching Learning (120 Marks)

This criterion evaluates how teaching-learning processes are designed to promote active, experiential, and outcome-oriented education.

Sub-Criterion	Marks (2015)	Marks (2025)	Change & What It Means
Processes Ensuring Quality	25	20	🔻 Marks reduced by 5 – Highlight innovative methods briefly
Student Projects	25	25	➡️ No change – Showcase strong capstone projects with industry relevance
Internship/Industrial Training	15	10	🔻 Marks reduced by 5 – Just document quality internships, not volume

Note: The newly added sub-criteria like Case Studies, SWAYAM/MOOCs, Sustainability Integration, and Industry Partnerships will be discussed separately under "Newly Added" later.

Criterion 3: Outcome-Based Assessment (120 Marks)

This criterion assesses the quality, tools, and processes of course and program outcome evaluations through structured methods.

Sub-Criterion	Marks (2025)	Marks (2015)	Change & What It Means
Internal Semester Papers, Assignments and Evaluation	10	20	🔻 Marks reduced from 20 to 10 – Focus only on constructive alignment proofs
Assessment Tools and Processes for CO Attainment	5	10	🔻 Marks reduced from 10 to 5 – Keep description short, highlight direct/indirect mapping
Recording CO Attainment Levels	20	40	🔻 Marks reduced from 40 to 20 – Summarize course-wise attainment trends only
PO & PSO Attainment	25	50	🔻 Marks reduced from 50 to 25 – Highlight program outcome attainment with minimal clutter

Note: Total marks for Criterion 3 have been significantly compressed (especially in attainment recording and internal evaluations), signalling NBA’s move toward lighter, evidence-backed submissions rather than heavy paperwork.

Criterion 4: Students’ Performance (120 Marks)

This criterion evaluates the academic success of students across the program and their transition into placements, higher studies, or entrepreneurship.

Sub-Criterion	Marks (2025)	Marks (2015)	Change & What It Means
Success Rate of Students (Without Backlogs)	15	40	🔻 Marks reduced from 40 to 15 – Focus on clean graduation rates, not inflated enrollment
Academic Performance of Second-Year Students	10	15	🔻 Marks reduced from 15 to 10 – Highlight CGPA trends concisely
Academic Performance of Third-Year Students	10	15	🔻 Marks reduced from 15 to 10 – Keep third-year data tight, show year-on-year improvement
Placement, Higher Studies, and Entrepreneurship	30	40	🔻 Marks reduced from 40 to 30 – Showcase real placement conversion ratios and entrepreneurship initiatives

Note: Overall, Criterion 4 has been compressed, emphasizing that NBA now expects you to demonstrate student success efficiently — no lengthy excel sheets, just key proof of graduation, progression, and outcome quality.

Criterion 5: Faculty Information (100 Marks)

This criterion assesses faculty qualification, cadre distribution, and retention to ensure sustained quality teaching resources.

Sub-Criterion	Marks (2025)	Marks (2015)	Change & What It Means
Faculty Qualification	25	20	🔺 Marks increased from 20 to 25 – Focus on Ph.D. qualified faculty and report year-wise
Faculty Cadre Proportion	25	20	🔺 Marks increased from 20 to 25 – Maintain balanced professor-associate-assistant ratio per AICTE norms
Faculty Retention	10	25	🔻 Marks reduced from 25 to 10 – Only show multi-year retention trends, no extra narratives

Note: NBA has now placed higher emphasis on faculty quality and structure rather than just loyalty/retention, reflecting a stronger push towards research-driven and experienced faculty recruitment.

Criterion 6: Faculty Contributions (120 Marks)

This criterion evaluates the professional development, research output, and consultancy engagements of faculty members to strengthen academic and industry linkages.

Sub-Criterion	Marks (2025)	Marks (2015)	Change & What It Means
Faculty Participation in STTPs/FDPs	10	15	🔻 Marks reduced from 15 to 10 – Focus only on participation evidence with certificates
Academic Research	15	10	🔺 Marks increased from 10 to 15 – Publish and showcase quality research papers
Sponsored Research Projects	15	5	🔺 Marks increased from 5 to 15 – Highlight funded projects with grants and agencies
Consultancy Work	15	5	🔺 Marks increased from 5 to 15 – Report consultancy income and industry collaborations clearly

Note: NBA now rewards institutions that demonstrate higher research engagement and revenue generation through sponsored projects and consultancy, rather than only attending training programs.

Criterion 7: Facilities and Technical Support (100 Marks)

This criterion evaluates the availability, quality, and enhancement of laboratory and technical infrastructure supporting teaching-learning processes.

Sub-Criterion	Marks (2025)	Marks (2015)	Change & What It Means
Adequate Laboratories and Technical Manpower	50	30	🔺 Marks increased from 30 to 50 – Strong lab setup and qualified staff are now critical
Additional Learning Facilities	20	25	🔻 Marks reduced from 25 to 20 – Focus more on impactful facility upgrades
Project Laboratory / Research Laboratory	10	5	🔺 Marks increased from 5 to 10 – Establish dedicated project labs to showcase innovations

Note: NBA is rewarding institutes that invest significantly in lab modernization and create project-driven infrastructure — simply owning basic labs is no longer enough.

Criterion 8: Continuous Improvement (80 Marks)

This criterion evaluates how well the institution uses outcome evaluation results (COs, POs, PSOs) and academic audits to drive systematic improvements.

Sub-Criterion	Marks (2025)	Marks (2015)	Change & What It Means
Academic Audit and Actions Taken	15	10	🔺 Marks increased from 10 to 15 – Conduct formal audits and maintain documented minutes/reports

Note: NBA is now placing slightly more emphasis on evidence of internal academic audits and structured follow-up actions to ensure continuous institutional growth.

Criterion 9: Student Support System and Governance (120 Marks)

This criterion assesses feedback mechanisms, governance structures, financial transparency, and faculty appraisal systems to ensure effective student and institutional support.

Sub-Criterion	Marks (2025)	Marks (2015)	Change & What It Means
Feedback on Academic Facilities	10	5	🔺 Marks increased from 5 to 10 – Strengthen feedback collection, analysis, and action reports
Governance Body, Administrative Setup, Rules, Policies	10	30	🔻 Marks reduced from 30 to 10 – Focus only on effective functioning proof, not volume of documents
Budget Allocation, Utilization, Public Accounting	12	30	🔻 Marks reduced from 30 to 12 – Provide audited statements and transparency proof compactly
Program Specific Budget Allocation	8	20	🔻 Marks reduced from 20 to 8 – Only justify program-level financial planning
Faculty Performance Appraisal System (FPADS)	10	30	🔻 Marks reduced from 30 to 10 – Document real usage of appraisal system, not just policy existence

Note: NBA has streamlined Criterion 9 by reducing redundant governance paperwork and shifting emphasis towards evidence-based governance practices and feedback-action linkage.

Conclusion

With this, we complete Part 2 of our detailed guide series on the NBA SAR 2025 changes for Tier 2 engineering colleges.

In Part 1, we focused on explaining the critical Pre-Qualifier changes, covering eligibility updates, allied department mapping, SFR calculation methods, and how to prepare for initial compliance.

In Part 2 (this article), we took a deep dive into the criterion-wise marks redistribution, highlighting how NBA has subtly but significantly shifted its priorities — rewarding outcome evidence, penalizing paperwork overload, and realigning institutional focus towards sustainable academic quality.

We now have a clear view of how the "old SAR" has evolved structurally.

Coming Up in Part 3: In the next article, we will focus exclusively on the newly added criteria and sub-criteria introduced in NBA SAR 2025.

Here is the Link to Part 3: Click Here

How My Book Solves What Revised NBA SAR 2025 Leaves Unsaid

Let’s be honest.

The Revised NBA SAR 2025 brought some good structural changes —

but it also left a lot unsaid.

No practical handbook.
No real-world implementation guide.
No structured support to help colleges actually apply the reforms.

And in that silence, most institutions today are left guessing.

That’s exactly why I wrote my book: "Outcome-Based Education – A Practical Guide for Higher Education Teachers"

Published even before NBA officially launched GAPC 4.0 and the New SAR in 2024.

Built not just from theory, but from on-ground experience of working with over 1000+ campuses across India.

What’s Inside the Book That the SAR Doesn’t Cover

How to Write Real, Measurable PEOs

Most colleges still create vague, theoretical mission statements.

My book gives you format templates backed by Bloom’s levels, stakeholder integration, and clear alignment with vision-mission-goals.

How to Map COs to POs (and Now to WKs)

SAR 2025 expects CO-PO-WK mapping — but doesn't explain how.

I do.

With ready-to-use tables, logical flow, and academic sense — not guesswork.

CO-PO Attainment Calculation (with Interpretation)

Not just formulas.

I explain the logic behind the numbers, how to set target levels, how to report attainment gaps, and how to plan corrective actions.

How to Create Course Files That Actually Prove Outcomes

No more decorative files stuffed with content.

I show how to build course files that speak the language of outcomes — files that actually satisfy NBA assessors.

Faculty-Level Understanding of OBE

One big SAR 2025 risk: If your faculty can’t explain the OBE processes they are following, NBA will mark it as non-compliant.

My book helps faculty internalize OBE — not just "prepare" for the visit.

Many more frameworks, templates, and real case studies

Covering real-world academic situations, innovative assessments, rubrics, student outcome analysis, and how to integrate SDG, PBL, and MOOC-based learning.

Why This Book Matters Now More Than Ever

If you’re preparing for Revised NBA SAR 2025 and you haven't yet adopted this practical framework, you’re doing it the hard way.

You can either keep struggling with interpretations, or you can build clarity, confidence, and compliance — by following a tested system that is already battle-proven in 1000+ campuses.

Grab the book now, and transform your NBA journey from guesswork to mastery.

Outcome-Based Education – A Practical Guide for Higher Education Teachers

(Available on Amazon, Flipkart, and select academic stores)

Get 20% Discount on Author Special Copy: https://www.deepeshdivakaran.com/buybook

Bonus Article: The Most Comprehensive Guide on PO Transition (12 POs to 11 POs)

While working on the SAR 2025 changes, one of the most critical shifts colleges must manage is the transition from 12 Program Outcomes (POs) to 11 POs under the GAPC 4.0 structure.

This transition is not cosmetic — it requires a full realignment of curriculum design, CO-PO mapping, attainment calculations, and reporting.

To address this, I have already published the most comprehensive and practical guide available today on this topic.

In this guide, you will find:

Why the PO structure changed and what it really means,
Step-by-step strategy for updating CO-PO-PSO matrices,
Practical transition mapping tables,
Common mistakes colleges must avoid during PO restructuring.

Access the Complete PO Transition Strategy Guide here: PO Transition from 12 POs to 11 POs – Complete Strategy Article

If your college has not yet restructured your CO-PO mappings to align with the new NBA SAR 2025, this article is absolutely essential reading.

Hi, I am Dr. Deepessh Divaakaran (Dr. DD) — Hi, I am Dr. DD

Thanks for diving into this article!

If it sparked something within you, let's keep this momentum going.

Curious about who I am? Get to know me better: Click here

Interested in exploring what I do? Check out my work: Click here

Love thought-provoking content? Subscribe to my website for regular inspiration: www.deepeshdivakaran.com/subscribe

Want deeper insights into Outcome-Based Education? My highly acclaimed book is now used by 1000+ institutes—grab your copy at a special author price: Buy It Here at Special Author Price

Need detailed guidance on education policies? Download my free NEP 2020 Guides Download Now

Connect with me on Linkedin: Click Here

Have questions or want to chat directly? Reach me on call or WhatsApp at +91 8086015111.

Prefer emails? I love them too! Drop a line at mail@deepeshdivakaran.com.

Your thoughts matter. Let’s shape education's future together.

Stay Inspired. Stay Informed.

Part 2: New NBA SAR 2025 vs Old SAR – A Comparison for Tier 2 Colleges

Introduction: The SAR Has Evolved – From Forms to Frameworks