To reform universities, first tackle global rankings
Article Date: 12 November 2025
Article URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03636-x
Article Image: https://media.nature.com/w767/magazine-assets/d41586-025-03636-x/d41586-025-03636-x_51676162.jpg
Summary
Elizabeth Gadd argues that global university rankings distort what universities do by privileging a narrow set of metrics — mainly publications, citations and reputation surveys. That pressure steers institutions towards a single model of ‘excellence’ (research‑intensive, wealthy, historically elite) and away from social impact, teaching quality, openness and equity. Gadd outlines a three‑pronged approach to change the system: call out the inadequacies of current rankings publicly, gather better data that reflect a wider range of university activities, and push institutions to stop feeding and over‑promoting ranking results (including initiatives such as ‘More Than Our Rank’). The piece calls for an independent, expert‑led campaign to educate students and policymakers and to create incentives for richer, contextualised assessment.
Key Points
- Global rankings focus on easily available data (publications, citations, reputation) and so narrow institutional priorities.
- Current indicators underweight teaching quality, open‑science, societal impact and diversity, equity and inclusion.
- Rankings are often opaque: weights are arbitrary and results are presented without error bars or nuance.
- Simple remedies from universities (narrative CVs, assessment matrices) are valuable but limited while rankings remain dominant.
- Gadd proposes three actions: publicly call out flawed rankings, gather and publish better data, and stop participating in or over‑promoting ranking metrics (e.g. More Than Our Rank).
- An independent, international education campaign should help students and policymakers choose universities based on fit and values rather than a single global score.
Why should I read this?
Because if you care about where money, hiring and attention go in higher education, this short piece tells you who’s pulling the strings and why it matters. It’s a no‑nonsense take on how a few numbers are warping big decisions — and what people could realistically do to push back.
Author style
Punchy: Gadd doesn’t mince words. The argument is direct and action‑oriented — this is aimed at people who want to change institutional incentives, not just lament them. If you work in university policy, research management or student representation, the piece is especially urgent and worth digging into.
Context and relevance
Rankings affect student choices, government funding decisions and national strategies (for example, visa rules and prestige funding initiatives). With geopolitical shifts (more Chinese and Indian institutions rising in the tables) and pressure on public funding and relevance, the harms of a one‑dimensional ranking system are growing. Reforms would influence hiring, curriculum design and how universities demonstrate social impact and openness. For students, policymakers and university leaders, the article gives practical levers — from data collection to collective campaigning — to rethink assessment and create space for diverse institutional missions.