– Ellen Hazelkorn & Philip G. Altbach. Ellen Hazelkorn is joint managing partner, BH Associates education consultants and professor emeritus at the Technological University Dublin, Ireland.  Philip G Altbach is a professor emeritus and distinguished fellow of the Boston College Center for International Higher Education, USA.

Global higher education rankings have become a multifaceted and highly profitable enterprise; The three main rankings, Times Higher Education (THE), QS, and the Academic Rankings of World Universities (Shanghai rankings) offer consulting services, “big data” analysis, benchmarking, and other services. Questions concerning conflict of interest and ethics of the system must be raised.

If you thought global rankings organisations simply produced multi-annual sets of university rankings – think again. Today, global higher education (HE) rankings are big profit centers for the companies owning them. The “Big 3”—QS, Times Higher Education (THE), Academic Rankings of World Universities (the Shanghai Rankings) and others – are in business to make money for their owners. The rankings are only part of the total enterprise—and perhaps a “loss leader.”

Global higher education rankings have become “big business” and have moved from focusing exclusively on ranking the world’s top universities to providing consulting services, charging for developing strategies for universities, and most recently, offering training programs.

They are a way of luring customers to the profit centers. Institutions submitting their institutional data to the ranking empires should understand the entire enterprise.

A Bit of History

Global university rankings (GUR) emerged onto the world stage at a significant moment in the acceleration of globalisation, massification, and the internationalization of higher education and global science. Since 2003, they have successfully generated considerable publicity by showcasing and comparing a university’s international standing at a time when their knowledge-producing and talent attractive capabilities were becoming the essential currency of the global era. Indeed, they helped define the global higher education and science system – which would have been impossible without the comparative evidence. And, of course, in an era when more than 6-milliion students study beyond their own borders, the rankings are used to select where to study.

The geo-politicalisation of higher education and science accelerated in the decades following the arrival of global rankings. Many countries launched “academic star wars” – otherwise known as excellence initiatives – tied explicitly to improving the ranked position of their universities, and accordingly the country. Despite significant criticism, global university rankings (GUR) are widely used. Ranking obsession persists across the world, even when the gap between position and ambition is unbridgeable.  

Governments and universities across the Global South are especially vulnerable. They are lured by a customised ranking for their country or region. In turn, rankings prey on their anxieties and their desire to reach a wider audience, build “world-class universities,” and recruit international students and investors.

Strategic Use of Data

The use of data for measurement and comparison stretch back to the foundations of the modern nation state in the late 19^th century. The US Bureau of Education began issuing reports on individual academic institutions in the 1870s, and the first accreditation agencies were established around 1900. The OECD began compiling statistical information in 1961 and the UNESCO Institute of Statistics was established in 1999.  Other historic landmarks were the Science Citation Index (1961) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (1966).

The strategic use of information is increasingly vital as governments and universities embrace an evidence-based decision-making approach. Without such information, it is not possible to govern, steer, develop, compare and monitor systems or institutions or achieve objectives and targets. There are national systems but no system for internationally reliable and comparable data is available. Thus, it is difficult to compare or benchmark universities. As a result, international rankings became a shorthand way of making such comparisons—and are now used for a variety of purposes.

The Business Model

Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU)–created by Shanghai Jiao Tong University–was launched in 2003 in response to the ambitious agenda set by the Chinese government to raise research standards and create world-class universities. It was an overnight success. QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) started its rankings in 2004 in collaboration with Times Higher Education (THE) — they split in 2009. THE, a British-based HE magazine, was bought by Inflexion Private Equity Partners in 2019. It has recently formed partnerships with international student services SI-UK (2020) and Studyportals (2020), and MBA-oriented Poets&Quants (2023). Its acquisition of Inside Higher Ed (2022), an American news site, created a global enterprise. By 2024, the 3 global rankings are part of a nexus of profit-making enterprises that provide a range of services to universities and others around the world.

The same argument can be made for many national rankings. For example, the very influential US News and World Report rankings used to be a magazine but is now only a rankings agency which includes not only colleges and universities but also healthcare, banking/finance, travel, cars, insurance, real estate, etc.

The absence of internationally comparable data encouraged rankings to establish their own repositories. The Global Institutional Profiles project was created by Clarivate (2009) in partnership between THE and Thompson Reuters. The involvement of the newly established data analytics industry, created to measure scientific productivity and impact of individual academics, universities, and systems and dominated by a few for-profit companies such as Scopus and Web of Science, has added to measures that the ranking agencies can use. In 2014, THE established DataPoints now including 9 million data points from 3,500 institutions from over 100 countries, while Shanghai Consulting has created Global Research University Profiles (GRUP). Corporate consolidation between rankings, publishing and data analytics has magnified the quantum of data now held by the ranking companies. Access to these data bases requires a subscription fee, even from the universities which supply their information for free.

Data collection, warehousing and analytics is a resource-intensive activity. Owning data-rich resources, as well as the sophisticated tools and associated services to capture and interpret, is where the real money and power lies. As one ranker mentioned, “As you know that rankings themselves cannot make money, one has to find funding or make money to support ranking activities, it’s not an easy task.”

Leadership and Management “thought leadership” summits are organised by the ranking companies frequently throughout the year and around the world to showcase their consultancy prowess. These include workshops in data analysis and advice as to how to improve in the rankings. Universities gladly participate to soak up the glamour. As one person explains, the university pays “several hundred thousand euros just for the brand” plus “travel expenses for speakers, lunches, etc.  And to my surprise, they (the rankers) also took all the money from the registration fee.”  

THE consultancy services provide institutional rankings performance analysis, competitor analysis, stakeholder perceptions analysis, international strategy, global academic reputation analysis, strategy evaluation, brand health check and research network analysis. QS’ consultancy services similarly provide “unrivalled data, expertise and solutions.” Naturally, these arrangements are confidential although THE proudly displays universities which have used their services. QS created India’s “first nationwide higher education rating system” using the brand QS I-GUAGE. Shanghai had an agreement with North Macedonia to create an evaluation system; a similar request was made of QS for Dubai free zone institutions.

There are growing allegations that advice leads to improved rankings. Is this the outcome of good advice or a conflict of interest? Is the growth of regional rankings, such as for MENA, Central Asia or Africa, simply business expansion or a strategy of entrapment to lure countries and universities into consultancy deals with the promise of helping them improve. Questions are often asked about the “independence” of the Times Higher Education which regularly includes articles about rankings.

Conclusion

Mutual self-serving benefits are created between governments or universities and the ranking consultancies. The former are reliant on the relationship leading to noticeable and quick improvements in their positioning, while the latter is dependent on ensuring such improvement, thus showcasing their worth, and creating the basis for additional contracts. Strategic use of data is here to stay – but without grappling with issues of data ownership, governance and regulation at a multilateral level – troublesome problems of full transparency, accountability and ethical standards will remain.