Time to Ditch QS University Rankings: Commercial Interests Have Corrupted Their Credibility
Share
For years, QS has marketed itself as a global authority on higher education quality. Its World University Rankings are splashed across headlines, used in marketing campaigns, and cited by institutions eager to showcase their prestige. Yet beneath the glossy veneer lies a system riddled with methodological flaws, commercial conflicts of interest, and growing scepticism from academics, employers, and even governments.
It is time for universities to downgrade QS rankings and related consulting products in the short to medium term, pending major reform.
Cracks in Credibility: Global Ridicule and Methodological Flaws
The South China Morning Post recently reported how QS’s latest Asia university rankings were ridiculed in China, with commentators openly mocking the results. When a supposedly authoritative ranking system produces outcomes that appear arbitrary or disconnected from reality, it undermines trust not only in the rankings themselves but also in the institutions that continue to promote them.
Our Founder, Soumik Ganguly, analyses this on LinkedIn and has repeatedly highlighted the misguided reliance on “employer reputation” surveys (Employer Reputation Trap; Misguided Idea). These surveys are opaque, perception-driven, and easily gamed. They measure branding and visibility rather than genuine graduate employability or skills alignment.
The volatility of QS rankings further erodes credibility. As Mr Ganguly noted in his review of Australian universities’ sudden rise (Rise of Australian Universities), institutions can leap dozens of places overnight due to methodological tweaks rather than substantive academic transformation. This is not a stable benchmark—it is a moving target designed to generate headlines.
Commercial Motivations: Rankings as a Funnel for Consulting
QS is not a neutral arbiter of academic quality. It is a for-profit enterprise that derives significant revenue from selling consulting services, data packages, and promotional opportunities to the very universities it ranks.
Our MasterCas blog has shown how QS’s MBA rankings mislead international students by misrepresenting employer reputation (Read our article). This is not just a methodological flaw—it is a business model. Rankings are the hook, consulting is the product. Universities that chase QS rankings often end up paying QS for advice on how to climb them, perpetuating a cycle of dependency.
QS as an Education Agent: A Deeper Conflict of Interest
Beyond rankings and consulting, QS has also entered the student recruitment market. Through acquisitions, QS now operates as an education agent, earning commissions on student placements. This raises profound questions about impartiality.
How can QS claim to objectively rank universities while simultaneously profiting from steering students toward those same institutions? The dual role of ranker and recruiter is a structural conflict of interest. It blurs the line between independent evaluation and commercial promotion, undermining QS’s claim to neutrality.
The Illusion of Prestige
The allure of QS rankings lies in their promise of prestige. But prestige built on flawed metrics and commercial incentives is an illusion. Universities that continue to trumpet QS rankings risk damaging their own credibility. Students and employers are increasingly aware of the weaknesses in the system. Governments, too, are beginning to question whether rankings should play any role in policy or funding decisions.
There needs to be a call for Universities to downgrade QS
Universities should recognise that QS rankings are not indispensable. There are alternative ways to demonstrate quality and impact:
- Transparent reporting of graduate outcomes and skills alignment
- Independent accreditation and professional body recognition
- Evidence of research impact, community engagement, and innovation capacity
By downgrading QS rankings and related consulting products in the short to medium term, universities can send a clear signal: credibility matters more than commercial spin. This does not mean abandoning comparative data altogether, but rather demanding reform, greater transparency in methodology, independence from consulting revenue, and metrics that reflect genuine educational value.
Conclusion: Reform or Irrelevance
QS has built a global brand around the allure of rankings. But as scrutiny intensifies—from Chinese commentators ridiculing its lists to analysts exposing its flawed employer reputation metrics—the cracks are widening. Its dual role as a ranker and education agent only deepens the conflict of interest.
Unless QS undertakes major reform, its rankings risk sliding into irrelevance. Universities, meanwhile, have a choice. They can continue to prop up a system driven by commercial motivations, or they can lead the shift toward more authentic, transparent measures of educational quality.
The time to ditch QS rankings is now.
