Various reactions from Malaysian Higher Education Institutions (IPTs) are frequently observed whenever the annual World University Ranking (WUR) Report is released, with the latest being the WUR 2024 published by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World Ranking. This annual report is eagerly anticipated by higher education institutions worldwide, including those in Malaysia. Two typical reactions from IPTs include celebrating achievements when their ranking rises or is maintained, and expressing discontent when their university is not listed at their expected level or is not listed at all in the WUR annual report. Within the latter group, various independent post-mortems are often conducted to scrutinize the reported rating scores. These reactions are not limited solely to the second group, particularly among those who experienced unexpectedly low ratings in the WUR.

In this article, three common reactions from IPTs are shared, compiled from two groups that either support (pro) or disagree (contra) with the WUR, and are frequently heard upon the annual publication of the WUR. A desktop analysis was conducted on these reactions of IPTs’ stakeholders each time the WUR report was announced, covering the years 2020 to 2024.

The Pros

1. Global Recognition: Being listed in the WUR grants invaluable recognition to IPTs. With global visibility, these institutions can attract students and researchers from around the world, thereby elevating Malaysia on the world stage in higher education.
2. Improving Quality: Global competition in university rankings incentivizes IPTs to enhance the quality of teaching, learning, and impactful research. A higher ranking prompts a more focused approach to curriculum revision, teaching enhancement, and increased research output for greater impact.
3. Collaboration Opportunities: Inclusion in the WUR opens doors to enhanced academic and research collaboration opportunities. IPTs can partner with renowned international universities, facilitating the exchange of academic staff, expertise, and mobility opportunities for both staff and students. This, in turn, enhances the visibility of local universities on the global stage.

The Cons

1. Disputed Methodology: While many welcome WUR, there’s a growing need to adopt a more critical approach to the methodology of the QS World Ranking. Some criticisms include a disproportionate emphasis on factors like reputation and research impact, which may not fully reflect true excellence. Here are five arguments commonly voiced within this group:

   a) Emphasis on Specific Parameters: The QS WUR evaluates universities using various specific parameters, including academic reputation, employment reputation, academic staff-to-student ratio, and research impact. Critics argue that these parameters may not comprehensively reflect educational quality or the university’s societal contribution. For instance, an emphasis on academic and employment reputation may favor internationally renowned universities while overlooking lesser-known institutions with significant potential.

   b) Lack of Regional Balance: The QS WUR appears to favor universities in developed regions like North America and Western Europe over others, potentially leading to a global representation imbalance. Universities in Asia, Africa, or Latin America may receive less attention or lower ratings despite offering comparable educational quality.

   c) Limitations and Transparency of Data: Critics highlight the lack of transparency in QS WUR’s methodology and data sources, leading to uncertainty regarding grading and ranking scores. Additionally, limited data availability, particularly from universities in developing countries, may result in inaccurate or unfair evaluations.

   d) Inability to Measure Education Quality Effectively: While QS WUR aims to assess education quality, critics argue that its methodology inadequately captures qualitative aspects. Factors like lecturer-student interaction quality, practical skill development, and deep learning opportunities may not be adequately represented in the parameters used.

   e) Influence of Business Factors: Some assert that university rankings can be influenced by business aspects such as advertising or sponsorship, potentially skewing results unfairly. This raises concerns about the independence and integrity of the WUR methodology.

2. Excessive Focus on Global Positioning: Overemphasizing global positioning may overshadow the unique needs and challenges within local contexts. IPTs must maintain a balance, prioritizing meeting the educational and developmental needs of local communities while also striving to enhance their global standing.
3. Stress and Pressure: Global rankings can impose added stress and pressure on IPT management, academic staff, and students. The pursuit of higher rankings may divert attention from the core mission of IPTs, potentially impacting their long-term sustainability.

In responding to the WUR’s annual report, IPTs should adopt a balanced and critical approach. While acknowledging global recognition as a success, they should also scrutinize the ranking methodology for potential biases or limitations that may not accurately reflect their true excellence. Furthermore, IPTs should persist in advancing quality education and research, considering the distinctive needs and challenges within the Malaysian context. This approach allows them to leverage the advantages of global rankings while enhancing their performance locally.