The QS World University Rankings, published by the UK-based Quacquarelli Symonds, is one of the most prominent global academic rankings, drawing considerable attention from universities, students, and employers worldwide. It has earned its prestigious standing thanks to its reliance on rigorous criteria that blend academic, professional, research, and international diversity dimensions. This makes it an important reference when comparing universities globally or seeking prestigious study destinations.
The QS ranking is built on a mix of quantitative data and survey responses from hundreds of thousands of academics and employers worldwide, giving it particular weight in terms of credibility and reach.
At its core, the ranking relies heavily on academic reputation, which accounts for around 40% of the overall score. This metric is measured through a global survey of researchers and university faculty who share their opinions on which institutions they consider the strongest in their fields. In addition, 10% of the weight is dedicated to employer reputation, based on employers’ views about which universities produce the graduates they most want to hire—a factor that enhances the ranking’s appeal for students seeking strong employment prospects after graduation.
A third important component in the QS formula is the faculty-to-student ratio, which carries about 20% of the total weight. This is considered an indirect indicator of teaching quality and academic support; the lower the number of students per faculty member, the greater the opportunity for individual interaction and academic quality. Furthermore, QS places significant emphasis on research impact through the citations-per-faculty metric, which also accounts for around 20% of the score. This reflects how widely a university’s research is disseminated and its contribution to global knowledge production, with data typically drawn from major research databases such as Scopus.
QS also does not overlook the international dimension, which has become an essential measure of a university’s global appeal. It allocates 5% of the score to the proportion of international students in the university community and another 5% to the share of international faculty. These two indicators reflect the institution’s openness to cultural and research diversity and its ability to attract outstanding talent from around the world.
In line with evolving academic interests and global values, QS has also recently added new metrics such as the sustainability indicator, which highlights a university’s commitment to sustainable development issues. It also includes the International Research Network indicator measuring cross-border research collaboration, and the Employment Outcomes metric, showing how well the university translates education into real career opportunities for its graduates.
All these criteria together offer a comprehensive picture of a university’s quality in teaching, research, and global reputation. This is why many international students rely on QS rankings when choosing the most suitable study destinations. Likewise, universities themselves work to improve their QS standing as a way to market their academic prestige internationally and enhance opportunities for academic and research collaboration with reputable partners.
Despite the emergence of other rankings—such as the Times Higher Education rankings and the Academic Ranking of World Universities (Shanghai Ranking)—QS remains distinctive for its balanced focus on academic reputation, employer perceptions, and the relative simplicity of its indicators compared to some more complex rankings. In this way, the QS ranking remains a powerful tool shaping the global higher education landscape, motivating universities to improve the quality of teaching, research, and cultural openness, and offering a reliable guide for students seeking institutions that value knowledge and produce future leaders.
However, this ranking also has important flaws and criticisms raised by academic circles and researchers interested in accurately and fairly measuring educational quality. The first major critique of the QS ranking is its heavy reliance on academic and employer reputation, which together make up about half of the total score. Because this reputation is collected through surveys, it is inherently subjective and vulnerable to geographic and cultural biases. It often favors English-speaking or older, more established universities with accumulated reputations—even if their actual quality has declined. This can marginalize up-and-coming universities that deliver genuine quality but have not yet built strong international networks or media visibility.
Another criticism is that indicators like the faculty-to-student ratio do not always accurately reflect real academic quality. Some universities may try to improve this ratio through superficial hiring or by restricting student admissions, without making real improvements to teaching methods or program quality.
A further common critique is that the QS research metric relies on the number of citations per faculty member, which can encourage quantity over quality in publishing. Universities may prioritize highly citable research—such as in medical fields—at the expense of humanities and social sciences, where research output might be less citation-dense but more profound in societal impact.
Moreover, the obsession with improving ranking positions can drive some universities to shape their policies primarily to meet these metrics. They may focus on boosting international student numbers or recruiting foreign faculty as goals in themselves—even if these moves don’t always improve the actual quality of the educational or research experience on campus.
As for the overall impact on university education outcomes, the risk is that institutions start chasing image and prestige over substance. In other words, part of the academic and administrative effort may shift toward improving numbers, reports, and public relations instead of developing curricula, equipping students with real skills, and activating research to address national and societal challenges.
Nevertheless, it’s impossible to ignore that such rankings have pushed universities worldwide to improve their external image, embrace international research collaboration, and pay greater attention to measuring and comparing their performance against global standards. The real challenge is for universities to avoid blindly enslaving themselves to ranking metrics and instead use them as tools for genuine improvement—not merely for marketing.
In short, the value of the QS ranking lies in being a general guide rather than a final verdict. It remains important to view it alongside other rankings and indicators, always linking its results to the context of each university, its local environment, and its real goals in graduating competent professionals capable of creating meaningful change rather than just competing on paper.
Finally, some of these ranking criteria remind me of employee performance reviews, where a fundamental question like “Does the employee do their work accurately and well?” may count the same as a superficial question like “Does the employee dress well and look neat?”. The result is that an employee who falls short in their actual work but maintains a polished appearance may score the same as someone who excels with genuine dedication but pays less attention to appearances. Where, then, are the real educational outcomes that matter most?
