Seven in 10 Indian institutions have slipped in the rankings, raising questions about methodology, commercial interests and how global rankings measure academic excellence
The latest QS Asia University Rankings 2027 have once again brought India’s higher education system under scrutiny. Seven out of ten Indian institutions featured in the rankings have slipped, and none of the country’s leading institutions has made it to the top 50 for the second consecutive year.
IIT Delhi, India’s highest-ranked institution, has fallen from 59th to 66th, while IISc Bengaluru has dropped from 64th to 79th. While these figures are concerning, they also raise a pertinent question: how much importance should we attach to rankings, and what exactly do they tell us about the quality of our universities?
When rankings shape priorities
Today, university rankings have acquired considerable influence. Students and parents use them to make choices, employers refer to them when assessing institutions, and governments increasingly see them as indicators of national competitiveness.
Also read | QS rankings: Why there is good news and bad news for Indian universities
Universities, in turn, devote considerable time and resources to improving their positions. What began as an exercise in providing comparative information has become a powerful influence on how institutions define and pursue excellence. Rankings, no doubt, have their uses. They bring institutional performance into public discussion, encourage universities to examine their weaknesses and offer students a basis for comparison.
What began as an exercise in providing comparative information has become a powerful influence on how institutions define and pursue excellence.
India’s latest performance, for instance, points to shortcomings in international research collaboration, student mobility and academic reputation, which are important issues. But the real problem is when rankings are treated as definitive assessments of institutional quality rather than one particular interpretation of it.
Consider the QS Asia methodology. Academic reputation accounts for 30 per cent of the score, and employer reputation another 20 per cent. Faculty-student ratio, international research networks and citations per paper account for 10 per cent each. Other indicators include research productivity, doctoral-qualified staff and internationalisation.
Rank doesn’t reflect performance
These are relevant measures, but can they collectively capture a university’s quality and purpose? Besides, reputation surveys, which account for half the total score, raise questions about whose perceptions are represented and how much historical prestige influences present assessments. An institution with decades of international visibility is naturally better placed in a reputation-driven system than one whose contributions remain largely regional. The latest results illustrate another limitation of interpreting rankings as measures of actual progress.
According to QS, two-thirds of Indian institutions that fell in the rankings improved their overall scores. Their positions declined because other institutions improved faster and the competition expanded. India now has 325 institutions in the list, including 34 new entrants. A fall in rank, therefore, does not necessarily mean that an institution has deteriorated. The distinction between relative position and actual performance is important, but often gets lost.
There is also a larger question about the business behind these rankings. QS and other major ranking organisations are commercial enterprises operating in the higher education market. Their activities extend beyond publishing league tables to include data services, institutional analytics and consulting.
There is nothing inherently improper about a commercial organisation evaluating universities. However, when an organisation also offers paid services to help the institutions it evaluates improve their performance and visibility, questions about potential conflicts of interest become unavoidable.
What rankings fail to recognise
A 2022 study published in the journal Higher Education, examining QS rankings and service contracts involving 28 Russian universities between 2016 and 2021, found a statistically significant association between frequent purchases of QS services and improvements in ranking positions.
The researcher cautioned that this did not establish deliberate manipulation, but suggested possible conflicts of interest. Should organisations exercising such influence over higher education not be held to equally demanding standards of transparency and accountability? Equally important is whether global rankings apply an inclusive understanding of university excellence.
A university serving an underserved region could therefore make a substantial contribution to society without receiving comparable recognition in a global ranking.
Institutions operate in very different social, economic and academic environments. A well-funded university in Singapore, with strong international recruitment and established research networks, does not face the same challenges as a large public university in India catering to students from diverse social and economic backgrounds. However, both are assessed through broadly comparable indicators. What happens to contributions that do not fit comfortably into these measurements?
Teaching first-generation learners, researching local problems, preserving languages and cultures, providing affordable higher education, and developing socially responsible graduates are all important university responsibilities. They may not translate into international citations, reputation scores, or student mobility figures. A university serving an underserved region could therefore make a substantial contribution to society without receiving comparable recognition in a global ranking. This does not mean international research or academic reputation should be disregarded. It means excellence cannot be reduced to a single, standardised model.
When rankings become the mission
The greater danger is that universities may gradually begin organising themselves around ranking indicators rather than their academic responsibilities. Ranking committees, consultants, data collection and performance monitoring can consume considerable institutional attention. Research collaborations may be pursued to improve scores, while teaching and student support receive less attention because they are harder to quantify. Universities may increasingly ask what will improve their rankings rather than what will improve their students’ educational experience. When this happens, the measure begins to determine the mission.
Also read | IIT Delhi highest-ranked Indian institution at 123 in QS World University rankings 2026
India cannot afford to ignore international rankings altogether. They offer useful comparisons and expose weaknesses that require attention. The latest results, particularly the gaps in research impact and international recognition, should prompt serious reflection and quick action.
Addressing these shortcomings requires genuine improvements in faculty strength, research quality, funding, international collaboration and student support, rather than strategies designed primarily to improve league-table positions. Ultimately, universities must be accountable for the quality of education and research they provide. But accountability should not mean unquestioning acceptance of external rankings.
A university is more than its research output, international visibility, or reputation among employers. It is also a place where knowledge is questioned, ideas are debated, and individuals learn to think independently. These responsibilities cannot always be expressed through numbers. We must ask who decides what is measured, whose interests the measurements serve, and what they leave out.
The real challenge for India is not simply to climb global ranking tables. It is to build universities whose academic quality and social contribution are strong enough to stand on their own merits, whether or not a ranking agency recognises them.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)
