Discover HKBU

The rankings race: What the numbers really mean for universities

30 Sep 2025

When Dr Jingwen Mu talks about university rankings, she knows the details inside out—indicators, weightings, trends – and even the history and development of the major rankings. As Director of Institutional Research and Strategic Planning at HKBU, and a member of the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) Global Rankings Advisory Board and the Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings Advisory Board, Dr Mu sees rankings not simply as numbers on a scoreboard, but as a window into how universities are performing and how higher education is evolving worldwide.

The design of rankings

“Rankings all speak to the questions universities care about most: reputation, research, and educational experience,” Dr Mu says. Both QS and THE share these priorities, but in distinct ways. QS sets itself apart by embedding sustainability into its flagship World University Rankings, while THE leans on per-capita measures, normalising indicators such as research income by staff size, to emphasise productivity rather than scale.

These design choices shape outcomes. “To level the field, agencies apply subject multipliers and field-weighted citation impacts. They are trying to measure fairly, but every system has limits,” Dr Mu adds.

Stability and volatility

Global university ranking began just two decades ago with the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), which initially covered around 500 institutions, and the THE-QS World University Rankings, which included about 200. Today, QS ranks more than 1,500 and THE covers over 2,000. With such rapid expansion, volatility has become a defining feature—particularly for universities outside the very top tier. As THE and QS broaden their data pools and adjust methodologies, movement in the tables has become more common. On the other hand, the ARWU remains the most stable, as it is anchored in long-term research indicators such as Nobel Prizes, which evolve over decades, or even centuries.

This growth also changes how results should be interpreted. Dr Mu points out that a university’s percentile rank—its relative standing among all entrants—is now often more meaningful than the absolute rank itself. For HKBU, this perspective is encouraging. The University now consistently converges around the global top 250, edging closer to the 200s. In percentile terms, as calculated by HKBU’s Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP), the progress appears even more substantial.

For smaller institutions, differentiation is the key. HKBU has carved out strengths in distinctive areas, such as Chinese medicine, sports science, creative arts, and communications disciplines. In the THE Impact Rankings, the University stands second worldwide for Quality Education. Together, these areas project a compelling story to prospective students and partners: HKBU competes internationally by its strategic focus and unique strengths.

Beyond the scoreboard

Dr Mu believes that rankings tell only part of the story, with each framework carrying its own blind spots. For instance, teaching quality remains notoriously difficult to measure. THE uses academic reputation surveys—essentially votes by scholars who may never have set foot on a campus. Student experience is even harder to capture. “Rankings can’t yet reflect what it feels like to study somewhere,” she says. “With generative artificial intelligence (AI), learning analytics, and new digital traces of student engagement, that may change.”

Future development of the rankings

Looking ahead, Dr Mu identifies two factors that are already reshaping global rankings. The first is sustainability, now moving decisively to centre stage. It will be measured not only by policy pledges, but also by evidence in research, teaching, and campus operations. The second is the growing weight placed on international partnerships and collaboration networks, which reward institutions that reach beyond familiar regions to forge truly global ties.

Dr Mu also sees AI as a coming game-changer. Generative AI can synthesise diverse student voices—from structured surveys to online posts—into more meaningful measures of educational experience. In time, these tools may also connect and integrate existing data and indicators, weaving them into the fabric of ranking systems, and offering a more holistic view of what universities truly achieve.