The $100 Million Question Nobody’s Asking

Picture this: A university president sits in her office, staring at the latest Times Higher Education rankings. Her institution has dropped three places. The board is concerned. Alumni are calling. The marketing department is in crisis mode. Over the next year, the university will spend millions on initiatives designed to climb back up — hiring researchers with high citation counts, courting international students, and launching PR campaigns to boost “reputation.”

Meanwhile, in a classroom down the hall, a brilliant teacher who transforms students’ lives receives a termination notice. Her crime? Not enough research publications.

This is the reality of higher education in 2025: We’re optimizing for rankings that measure everything except what actually matters — student learning.

The Numbers That Should Shock You

Let’s start with some hard data about how these rankings actually work:

Times Higher Education (THE) World Rankings 2025:

• 33% based on reputation surveys (teaching 15%, research 18%)
• 30% based on research metrics (volume, income, reputation)
• 7.5% based on international outlook
• Only 4.5% remotely connected to teaching (via student-staff ratio)
• 0% measuring actual student learning outcomes

QS World Rankings:

• 50% reputation-based (40% academic, 10% employer)
• 20% faculty/student ratio (a poor proxy for teaching quality)
• 20% citations per faculty
• 10% international ratios
• 0% measuring what students actually learn

Here’s the kicker: In THE’s reputation survey, 84% of respondents admitted they were unfamiliar with some institutions they were asked to rank. Imagine if Michelin stars were awarded by chefs who’d never tasted the food.

The Self-Perpetuating Prestige Machine

The most insidious aspect of current rankings is their circular logic. Universities with high reputations get ranked highly, which increases their reputation, which improves their ranking. It’s a closed loop that has nothing to do with educational quality.

Research from Stanford shows that administrator opinions of other institutions are based almost entirely on those institutions’ prior rankings. The reputation score isn’t measuring reputation — it’s measuring the echo of previous rankings.

Consider this data point: When U.S. News changed its methodology in 2019, 73 law schools saw ranking changes of 10 or more places. Did these schools suddenly become dramatically better or worse overnight? Of course not. The schools stayed the same; only the arbitrary formula changed.

The Research Bias That’s Killing Teaching

Here’s a stunning statistic: Research metrics account for 30-60% of major rankings, while direct teaching quality measures account for less than 5%.

The result? Universities are incentivized to:

• Hire researchers who publish prolifically but can’t teach
• Merge departments to boost citation counts
• Eliminate teaching-focused positions
• Reduce investment in classroom innovation
• Prioritize graduate research over undergraduate education

A 2023 study found that universities climbing in rankings actually showed decreased student satisfaction and lower teaching evaluation scores. We’re literally rewarding institutions for getting worse at their primary mission.

The Gaming System That Everyone Knows About

Universities spend millions gaming these rankings. Here’s how:

The Northeastern University Case Study:

• Ranked #162 in 1996
• Ranked #49 in 2024
• How? By explicitly targeting ranking metrics:
  • Decreased acceptance rate from 75% to 18%
  • Recruited international students aggressively
  • Invested in citation-generating research centers
  • Hired consultants to optimize ranking performance

Did education quality improve 113 places worth? Student debt at Northeastern increased 248% during this period.

The Columbia University Scandal:

In 2022, Columbia was caught submitting false data to U.S. News:

• Claimed 82.5% of classes had <20 students (actual: 62.7%)
• Inflated faculty credentials
• Misrepresented student-faculty ratios
• Manipulated financial data

The punishment? A temporary drop in rankings, then business as usual.

The Metrics That Actually Predict Student Success

While rankings obsess over prestige proxies, research consistently shows what actually matters for student outcomes:

Gallup-Purdue Index (60,000 graduate survey):

Students were more likely to thrive after graduation if they had:

1. A professor who made them excited about learning (2.0x more likely)
2. Professors who cared about them as people (1.7x more likely)
3. A mentor who encouraged their goals (1.6x more likely)
4. Worked on long-term projects (1.8x more likely)
5. Had internships applying classroom learning (1.9x more likely)

Notice what’s missing? Not a single mention of:

• University ranking
• Faculty citations
• International ratios
• Institutional reputation

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Data:

Analyzing 5 million student responses over 20 years shows the strongest predictors of learning gains:

1. Faculty-student interaction quality (r=0.68)
2. Active and collaborative learning (r=0.64)
3. High-impact practices participation (r=0.61)
4. Supportive campus environment (r=0.58)

Current rankings measure exactly zero of these factors directly.

The Signal System We Actually Need

Instead of measuring institutional prestige, we need a signal system that measures what predicts student success. Here’s what that would look like:

1. Input Signals (What Students Experience):

• Engagement metrics: Time faculty spend with students
• Active learning: Percentage of courses using evidence-based teaching
• Practical application: Internships, projects, real-world integration
• Support systems: Advising quality, mental health resources, career services
• Inclusive practices: Achievement gaps, first-generation student success

2. Process Signals (How Learning Happens):

• Pedagogical innovation: Adoption of proven teaching methods
• Feedback quality: Timeliness and usefulness of assessment feedback
• Collaborative learning: Group projects, peer instruction, discussion quality
• Technology integration: Effective use of educational technology
• Curriculum coherence: How well courses build on each other

3. Outcome Signals (What Students Achieve):

• Learning gains: Pre/post assessment of actual knowledge
• Skill development: Critical thinking, communication, problem-solving
• Career readiness: Job placement, starting salaries, employer satisfaction
• Civic engagement: Voting rates, community involvement, leadership
• Lifelong learning: Graduate school success, continued education

4. Value-Added Signals (The True Institutional Contribution):

• Social mobility: Income quintile movement of graduates
• Learning efficiency: Cost per unit of learning gain
• Equity outcomes: Success rates across demographic groups
• Innovation generation: Student startups, creative works, social impact
• Well-being outcomes: Mental health, life satisfaction, purpose

The $1.5 Trillion Problem

American student debt now exceeds $1.5 trillion. The average debt load has increased 300% since rankings became dominant. Meanwhile, employer satisfaction with graduate preparedness has decreased by 11% over the same period.

We’re creating a generation crushed by debt from institutions optimized for prestige rather than learning. The correlation between ranking and student debt (r=0.73) is stronger than the correlation between ranking and learning outcomes (r=0.31).

Real Institutions Getting It Right (Despite Rankings)

Some institutions are bucking the trend:

Hampshire College:

• Refused to participate in rankings since 2004
• Focuses on narrative evaluations over grades
• 85% of graduates accepted to first-choice graduate programs
• Produces more Fulbright scholars per capita than most Ivies

St. John’s College:

• Great Books curriculum unchanged since 1937
• Ranks “poorly” due to lack of research focus
• Graduates have higher PhD completion rates than Harvard
• Alumni report 94% satisfaction vs. 67% average

Paul Quinn College:

• Transformed from failing to thriving by ignoring rankings
• Became a “work college” where all students work
• Graduation rate increased 400%
• Student debt decreased 40%

The Path Forward: A Signal Revolution

We need to abandon the false god of institutional rankings and build a signal system that measures what matters. This system would:

1. Be Transparent:

Every metric publicly available, calculation methods open-source, data auditable by third parties.

2. Measure Learning:

Direct assessment of student knowledge gains, skill development, and real-world application.

3. Value Teaching:

Reward institutions that invest in pedagogy, support teachers, and prioritize student success.

4. Promote Equity:

Measure how well institutions serve all students, not just the pre-privileged.

5. Focus on Value:

Consider cost, debt, and return on investment, not just outcomes.

The Choice We Face

We stand at a crossroads. We can continue down the current path — where universities optimize for metrics that have little to do with student success, where teaching is devalued, where debt soars while learning stagnates.

Or we can choose differently. We can demand a signal system that measures what matters. We can reward institutions that transform lives, not those that game rankings. We can build an education system optimized for learning, not prestige.

The tragedy isn’t that our current rankings are flawed — it’s that we know they’re flawed and continue to worship them anyway. Every year, millions of students make life-altering decisions based on metrics we know are meaningless. Every year, universities spend billions chasing numbers that don’t matter.

The Revolution Starts With You

If you’re a student: Look beyond rankings. Ask about teaching quality, learning outcomes, student support, and debt levels.

If you’re an educator: Advocate for measuring what matters. Share data on learning outcomes, not just research metrics.

If you’re an administrator: Have the courage to prioritize education over rankings. Your students will thank you.

If you’re a policymaker: Stop using rankings for immigration points, funding decisions, or partnership approvals.

The emperor has no clothes. These rankings measure institutional wealth and prestige, not educational quality. It’s time we said so — loudly, clearly, and repeatedly.

Because until we change what we measure, we’ll never change what we achieve. And what we should be achieving is simple: transforming students’ lives through excellent education.

The question isn’t whether the current system is broken — the data makes that undeniable. The question is whether we have the courage to fix it.

---

The data speaks for itself. Rankings measure everything except learning. It’s time for a signal revolution in higher education — one that puts students, not prestige, at the center.