I vividly remember late night scrolling on U.S. News & World Report and QS World University Rankings, a mix of thrill and angst churning in my stomach. Those numbers weren't just statistics to me; they were promises.
As long as I can remember, the topic of rankings has dominated discussions of higher education. They're omnipresent: magazine covers, online listings, debate on social media even within my family home. "Look, this university is in the top 10!" or "Don't even consider that one; it's barely ranked." When I first applied to college, I vividly remember late night scrolling on U.S. News & World Report and QS World University Rankings, a mix of thrill and angst churning in my stomach. Those numbers weren't just statistics to me; they were promises. A promise that the sleepless nights studying, the stress, and the financial burdens my family and I were undertaking would pay off with a world class education.
But at least in my experience, the reality was much more complex, I found myself in classrooms where the promise of small, personalized instruction was overshadowed by large lecture halls and overworked professors. I felt the stress of trying to keep up with the pace, and despite all the money my family had spent, I often wondered whether I was really getting the quality education I'd been promised. It is just because of that personal disillusionment that the question needs to be asked, are these rankings really so important?
The Allure of Rankings
It's easy to understand why rankings are so compelling. Numbers feel objective. They give the impression that someone has done the hard work of measuring quality, and that by simply choosing a highly ranked school, a student can secure academic success. Families use them to make life altering financial decisions. Governments and policymakers consult them when allocating funding. And universities themselves often chase higher rankings as if their reputation depends solely on these lists.
Yet beneath the surface, the metrics that power these rankings often have little to do with what matters most – the actual experience of learning.
Research repeatedly shows that rankings tend to favor wealth, exclusivity, and research output rather than the quality of teaching, mentorship, or student support. That means a school with a huge endowment and a lot of publications might rank higher than a smaller, more student focused institution even if the latter produces graduates who are better prepared for the real world.
When Rankings Mislead Students
I have met students who were excited about going to prestigious institutions, only to find that the daily reality did not match the hype. One friend spent her first semester in a lecture hall with over 400 students, struggling to get any direct support from teaching staff. Another spent hours navigating a poorly organized advising system, despite the school’s top tier ranking.
In my own experience, rankings created expectations that the institution simply couldn’t meet. I had expected a learning environment that would challenge me but be supportive, with accessible professors invested in my growth. In reality, I found crowded courses, long waits for help in pursuit of academic success, and unmanageable levels of stress. The education was not useless far from it but it had also been far from the guarantee that the rankings implied.
These experiences reflect a broader pattern. Many rankings depend on self reported information from universities, which can be strategically manipulated to enhance standing, as noted by Fauzi et al. (2020) and Cremonini et al. (2007). Wealthier institutions have more resources with which to shape favorable data presentations, enhancing their apparent strength without changing what students actually experience in the classroom.
A Closer Look at Methodology
Take research output, for instance. Quantifications of publications and citation indices reach across almost every ranking formula. But does a school filled with published professors automatically equate to undergraduates receiving a better education? The evidence does not necessarily prove that. Research published on the Journal of Big Data signals that there's little evidence linking research productivity to undergraduate teaching quality. Meanwhile, additional research has argued that this focus on measurable prestige rewards activities that may look good on paper but don’t necessarily enrich the student experience.
Even reputation surveys, which usually constitute a significant share of the ranking of a university, might be misleading. According to research published on the SCHOLEDGE International Journal of Business Policy & Governance those surveys mostly reflect historical prestige, an institution that was elite decades ago may keep scoring highly despite stagnation in its teaching methodologies. This nurtures a self perpetuating cycle where the past reputation feeds into a school's ranking, which reinforces the school's image in people's minds.
How Rankings Shape Institutional Behavior
The influence of rankings goes beyond how students choose colleges it actively shapes how universities operate. Research has shown how often engineering departments, for instance, prioritize hiring faculty with strong research portfolios not because they are better educators but because their publications improve rankings. Recent evidence has pointed that global university rankings often prioritize western values. I've seen this in action. The following hypothetical scenario comes to mind: a university decides to cut back on small discussion based courses in favor of larger lectures that free up faculty to focus on research projects. The school climbs in the rankings, but students lose the close interactions that make learning meaningful. For families and students investing thousands of dollars, these subtle trade offs can make a real difference. Walter Leal Filho – a professor at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences – and others argued in their research that this focus on metrics can also divert resources from student services like tutoring, advising, and mental health support toward initiatives that improve rankings, such as marketing campaigns or research infrastructure. What this means, in other words, is that the system rewards appearances rather than actual educational value.
Inequities in Higher Education
Rankings therefore have deep equity implications. Colleges that emphasize access for first generation or low-income students are routinely ranked lower, as metrics focus on selectivity and wealth. Consider a thought experiment: suppose there are two universities, one of which is highly selective in its admissions and has large endowments, while the other is inclusive and focuses its resources on supporting students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It may be that the latter university produces well-skilled and resilient graduates, yet it ranks lower simply because it does not meet the narrow criteria of the ranking formula.
This is a structural bias that does not stop at schools, it permeates to students. My own experience of apprehension whether the investment my family was making would pay off reflects the pressure these rankings create. For those students who do not have substantial family support, the stakes are so much greater, and with it comes greater stress.
Can Rankings Ever Capture Educational Value?
With such flaws, do rankings ever serve a useful purpose? They can indicate, in very general terms, something about institutional size, research activity, or financial resources. However, they do not even approximate students' experience, quality of learning, or personal development. Clustering methods have been proposed as an alternative institutions are grouped by similar characteristics rather than placed in a single hierarchical ranking. This would enable families to learn about schools matching their priorities without using an oversimplifying number.
Personal Takeaways
The takeaway, as I look back on my own journey, is that unambiguous rankings are not destiny. They might be a decent starting point, but they shouldn't be a driver of decisions about education. My experience and that of many peers suggests that the real markers of quality are often invisible in the numbers accessible professors, meaningful mentorship, courses that challenge and inspire, and support systems that allow students to thrive
If I had to hypothetically advise a younger student today, I'd tell them to treat rankings as one data point among many. Visit campuses. Talk to students. Explore curricula. Understand what matters to you personally. Because in the end, the ranking might be high, but if the experience doesn't match your goals, then it doesn't matter.
If you have questions or comments for me or find an issue with this article feel free to email me at [email protected] or DM us on Instagram below!
Triteens Media is THE media outlet for teenagers. Stories and journalism you can trust. We report on what matters. Follow us if you want amazing reporting coming straight to your email!
