SAR stands for Self-Assessment Report. It is the comprehensive document a programme (engineering, pharmacy, management, architecture) submits to the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) when seeking accreditation. The SAR documents programme performance against NBA's criteria and serves as the primary basis for the NBA expert team's evaluation.
Why SAR matters
SAR is the foundation of every NBA accreditation decision. NBA expert teams base their evaluation primarily on the SAR — every claim, every score, every recommendation flows from it. A poorly structured SAR with inconsistencies between sections is the #1 cause of pre-qualifier rejection. Programmes that pass the pre-qualifier still face deep scrutiny during the expert team visit, where every SAR claim is cross-checked against on-site evidence.
Tier-I vs Tier-II SAR
NBA distinguishes between two tiers based on institutional autonomy. Tier-I is for autonomous institutions with curriculum design flexibility — they bear additional responsibility for OBE design and Programme Educational Objectives. Tier-II is for affiliated colleges that follow the affiliating university's curriculum. SAR formats differ between tiers, with Tier-I requiring more depth on curriculum innovation and Tier-II focusing on implementation quality within the affiliated framework.
SAR 2025 format and GAPC v4.0
NBA released revised SAR formats aligned to GAPC v4.0 (Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies Version 4.0), based on the Washington Accord 2021 Review. The new format is mandatory for Tier-I (Autonomous) engineering programmes from January 1, 2025 and for Tier-II (Affiliated) programmes also from January 2025 with a transition window allowing the previous format until June 2025. The most consequential change: Programme Outcomes were reduced from 12 to 11, with Sustainability and Ethics woven into Design, Investigation, and Analysis rather than being standalone POs.
What SAR contains
A complete SAR covers Institutional Information (Part A), Criteria Summary (Part B), and Program Level Criteria (Criteria 1-10). The criteria span Vision/Mission/PEOs, Programme Outcomes and Course Outcomes, Curriculum, Students' Performance, Faculty Information and Contributions, Facilities and Technical Support, Continuous Improvement, Student Support Systems, Governance, and Financial Management. Each criterion has specific scoring weightages totaling 1,000 marks.
Common SAR mistakes
The most frequent SAR mistakes are: Generic PSOs copied from premier institutions instead of being unique to the programme; Calculating CO-PO attainment without producing Action Taken Reports for low attainment; Inconsistent finance data between department budget claims (Criterion 10) and the institute's audited statement; Treating "Complex Engineering Problems" superficially when GAPC v4.0 explicitly requires synthesis-level cognitive demand; Faculty headcounts that don't align with the Faculty-Student Ratio claimed in Criterion 5.