University Rankings Are a Mirror, Not a Strategy

Show notes

I led the reputation strategy behind Newcastle University's highest ever QS World University Rankings placement, and learned that rankings work best when you do not chase them. Here is how to use them well.

• Use the underlying ranking data as a diagnostic, not the headline position.
• Find the gap between how good you are and how good you seem.
• Decide what you want to be known for, then close the gap.

Read the article: Rankings are a mirror, not a strategy

Full transcript

Hello, and welcome to Marketing Greats in Higher Education. I'm Jonathan Sabarre, your host, and this is where we explore the ideas shaping how universities are seen, chosen and trusted around the world. Everything I share on this show is my own personal view.

I've seen rankings from more angles than most. I led the reputation strategy that took Newcastle University to its highest ever placement in the QS World University Rankings. I chaired the QS Global Advisory Board for Europe. Today I work at QS, with universities around the world. So here's what it taught me. Rankings matter a great deal, and they work best when you don't chase them. I learned that the slow way!

That isn't a contradiction. Rankings shape the choices of students, partners, funders and governments, and pretending otherwise does an institution no favours. But a ranking reflects what a university has already become. It shows you where you stand today. It can't tell you who you want to be. Think of a health check. It tells you something true and important, but nobody plans their life around a single blood pressure reading.

Look at what happens when a leadership team writes "rise ten places" into the strategy. Effort drifts towards whichever indicators look easiest to move. Decisions start to suit the methodology rather than the mission. And colleagues feel judged by something they don't understand and never chose. Imagine being a brilliant researcher told your work only counts if it nudges a number. It rarely produces lasting improvement, because none of it is built on what the institution genuinely values.

The universities I've seen improve most consistently use rankings differently. First, as a diagnostic. The underlying data is far more useful than the headline position. It shows how academics and employers around the world perceive you, how your research is cited, and how international your community is. Two universities can sit side by side in the table for completely different reasons, and the data shows you which reasons are yours.

Second, as a mirror on reputation, which I find most exciting. For many institutions, the gap between how good they are and how good they're perceived to be is their biggest opportunity. If your research is excellent but your academic reputation lags behind, that's a story you haven't told well enough, to the right people, in the right places. The quality is already there. The work is making sure the world hears about it.

Third, as a conversation starter. Rankings give a leadership team a shared, external view to discuss. Used carefully, that conversation can bring a university together around its genuine priorities, rather than dividing it over a number. The most useful version starts with the table on the screen and very quickly moves beyond it, towards what the institution actually wants to achieve.

People ask how Newcastle reached a hundred and tenth. My answer surprises them, because we didn't start with the ranking. We started with what the University was genuinely strong at. We built a global brand, research and reputation strategy around those strengths. Then we made sure the people who shape academic and employer reputation around the world actually heard about them. The ranking followed the work. It never led it.

That's the approach I'd recommend. Decide what you want to be known for. Measure how far perception has caught up with reality. Then close the gap with sustained, honest effort, and let the rankings reflect it, even when one year's result disappoints. It's slower than a quick fix, and it asks for patience at the top. But it's the only approach I've seen that keeps paying back.

Rankings will keep evolving, and they should. Methodologies change, new measures arrive, and the tables will always generate headlines. The universities that thrive will treat rankings as a mirror worth looking into regularly, and never mistake the reflection for the plan. So look in the mirror, by all means. Then turn around, and go and build something worth reflecting!

Thank you for spending this time with me. If this episode sparked something for you, hit subscribe, so you never miss the next one. And our full season, with guests from leading universities around the world, is coming very soon. Head to Jonathan Sabarre dot com and sign up, so you're the first to know when it launches. Until next time, keep building something great.