QS University Ranking: Claims and Controversies
By: Aisha Zahrany Putri Noor
Edited by: Angelina Gaol
Esteemed by some and criticized by others, the QS World University Rankings have long been a significant player in the landscape of global higher education assessment, becoming one of the most sought-after references for students who are looking for higher education. Despite that, QS rankings still face a lot of criticism. From questionable methodology to suspicion of biases, QS rankings’ reputation is now hanging by a thread as it is, with the question: are they truly still reliable?
The History of QS University Ranking
First published in 2004, the QS World University Rankings emerged from a collaboration between Quacquearelli Symonds (QS) and Times Higher Education (THE). These rankings were initially aimed to provide a comprehensive and accessible guide to the world’s top universities. The rankings were created to evaluate institutions based on various indicators, including academic reputation, employer reputation, faculty or student ratio, citations per faculty, international faculty ratio, and international student ratio. Decades later, the QS rankings have grown in influence and are now one of the most widely recognized university ranking systems worldwide.
Questioning the Methodology
Over the years, the methodology of QS World University Rankings has been refined. This is done to continuously improve the quality of the ranking and to make sure that the ranking can better reflect the evolving landscape of global higher education. Despite the increasing prominence, however, the QS University Rankings have also gained scrutiny surrounding their methodology.
One of the most contentious aspects of the QS rankings is their reliance on reputation surveys, which contribute significantly to the overall score. These surveys gather opinions from academics and employers worldwide, ostensibly to gauge the reputation of institutions in academia and the job market. However, the credibility and validity of these surveys have been questioned.
In 2013, upon participating in a paid survey in Opinion Outpost, specifically the QS Global Academic Survey, a philosophy professor encountered unexpected questions related to the QS rankings. This sparked controversial discussions about the credibility of the QS rankings especially because the survey counts for 40% of the QS World University Rankings. Many have raised concerns about the integrity and authenticity of the survey process as it suggests that some of the data used to compile the rankings may come from respondents who might not be fully aware of the survey's purpose or their lack of expertise in evaluating institutions comprehensively. Moreover, the fact that a paid survey accounts as the basis that determines the QS World University Rankings itself, is worth questioning. In response to this, Ben Sowter, the then head of the intelligence unit at Quacquarelli Symonds, defended the company by saying that “the notion of providing incentives for surveys is not a new one.”
Fast forward to 2023, QS introduced changes to its methodology in which weightings are changed and new metrics have been added. Some of the changes include, but not limited to, the weighting reduction for academic reputation from 40% to 30%, increased weighting for employability to 5%, and the newly added sustainability indicator.
While Ben Sowter, now QS Senior Vice President, saw these changes as a “reset” for QS World University Rankings, the adjustments were not free of disputes and debates. Critics argue that the new weightings may disproportionately benefit certain types of institutions and not the others. For example, the increased emphasis on employer reputation could favor institutions with strong industry connections but might not accurately reflect academic quality or research output.
Exclusivism and Biases
Another controversy surrounding the QS rankings is the suspicion that they may favor certain institutions, particularly those in English-speaking countries or with established global reputations. For instance, universities in the United States and the United Kingdom consistently dominate the top ranks, raising questions about the fairness and inclusivity of the rankings. As the QS Rankings have remained one of the top references for students who are looking for higher education, this perceived bias can influence students’ choices, perpetuating a narrow definition of academic excellence and marginalizing emerging institutions from non-Western regions.
In 2021, the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley, released a report by Igor Chirikov which resulted in concerns being raised about potential conflicts of interest in the QS rankings. The report talks about QS’s advisory and consultancy services which, according to QS, is aimed to “navigate the complexities of the ever-changing higher education landscape” and suggests that this particular business may have influenced the rankings in an appropriate way.
This dual role as both a ranking agency and a consultant can create conflicts of interest, leading to suspicions that QS might favor its clients in the rankings. This is emphasized by Chirikov’s study as results showed that “universities with frequent QS-related contracts experienced much greater upward mobility in both overall rankings and in faculty-student ratio scores over five years in the QS World Rankings.” Such conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived, can erode trust in the rankings and raise questions about their credibility and impartiality.
The QS World University Rankings occupy a prominent position in the global higher education landscape, shaping perceptions and decisions across the academic community. However, the claims and controversies surrounding their methodology, biases, and potential conflicts of interest call for a critical examination of their role and impact. Thus, it is important for us to approach them with a discerning eye, recognizing their limitations and the complexities involved in measuring academic excellence.