Twenty-four Australian universities declined in overall score in a new edition of Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE WUR) released today.
This year’s results for Australian universities indicate that a continuous decline in performance is evident. This decline is obscured by THE’s changes to the reputation methodology. It may take another two to three years for reputation scores to be stabilized.
However, the lack of public investment in research and development, as well as the cap on international student enrolments, are likely to hinder Australian universities’ ability to remain competitive in global rankings.
Two Victorian universities remain Australia’s best universities in the 2025 edition. Melbourne is ranked 39, down two places compared to 37 last year, followed by Monash ranked =58, down four places from 54 last year.
Sydney is ranked third in Australia at 61, down one place from 60 last year, followed by ANU at =73, down six places from 67 last year.
Among the Go8, UNSW is the only institution which improved its overall standing, moving up one place to 83. Queensland moved down seven places to 77, Adelaide moved down 17 places to =128, and Western Australia is down six places to =149.
Overall, Australia has ten universities in the top 200. Go8 institutions occupy the first eight spots, followed by UTS at =154, down six places from last year, and Macquarie, which moved up two places to 178.
Let us first examine the two factors which explain Australia’s downturn in THE: the operating deficits of universities in 2022 and the outcome of THE’s methodological adjustments to the reputation survey.
Why the decline?
Until now, Australian universities have avoided a hit in declining performance in global rankings, in part assisted by asset sales, special grants for research purposes, and the revised methodology THE introduced in 2023.
This year’s results are not unexpected, considering that Australia’s performance in recent years has been waning due to the absence of increased public investment in education and research endeavors.
This year’s result reflects the circumstances of 2022, when 27 Australian universities reported a deficit (net result after income tax), compared to only three reporting a deficit in 2021.
Several Australian universities reported fewer academic staff due to restructuring, while others aimed to return to pre-pandemic levels to keep with student demand.
Reputation scores
The performance of Australian universities in THE was adversely impacted by weaker scores in the reputation survey due to methodological adjustments. THE is using UNESCO data to control the overall research population and normalize the votes for institutions in every country.
It also happens that Australia’s number of researchers were not updated for several years. Australia’s statutory agency provided updated figures to UNESCO recently, and the numbers were lower than previously reported for Australia. In other words, inaccurate numbers of the past helped Australian universities to shine in the reputation indicators.
Performance by pillar
Let’s briefly see how Australian universities performed on a pillar-by-pillar (or category) basis:
- Teaching: 29 institutions moved down in score and 8 moved up. Performance was largely influenced by the teaching component of the reputation survey, which accounts for 15% of the overall score. Deakin improved the most by 0.4 weighted points, followed by Swinburne by 0.3 weighted points.
- Research environment: 26 institutions moved down in score, 8 moved up and 1 remained unchanged. Movement was largely influenced by performance in the research component of the reputation survey, weighing 18% of the overall score. Federation improved the most by 1.8 weighted points, followed by Deakin and Southern Queensland, which both improved by 0.5 weighted points.
- Research quality: 15 institutions moved down in score and 22 institutions moved up. Performance was largely influenced by the citation impact measure, which makes up 15% of the overall score. Furthermore, several institutions’ performance rested on the measures of research strength, excellence, and influence. Charles Sturt improved the most by 2.4 weighted points, followed by Federation by 2.3 weighted points, and Central Queensland by 2.1 weighted points.
- International outlook: 19 institutions moved down, 9 moved up, and 9 remained unchanged. Year-on-year movement was very tight, and it is therefore hard to draw any meaningful comparison. Institutions which improved the most were Southern Cross by 0.6 weighted points and then ACU and Central Queensland, both by 0.4 weighted points.
- Industry: 7 institutions moved down in score, 27 moved up, and 3 remained unchanged. Several institutions moved up in score in both measures – patents and industry income per academic staff. Federation improved the most by 1.3 weighted, followed by Sunshine Coast by 0.8 weighted points.
Through the lens of university networks
Over the past five years, the overall score for members of the Regional Universities Network has improved the most; however, only six of its seven members are ranked by THE. In 2021, their aggregated score per institution was 22.4 and it now stands at 30.4.
The next significant improvement is with the Australian Technology Network of universities. In 2021, their overall aggregated score per institution was 49.6 and it now stands at 55.8.
The overall aggregate score per institution for the Innovative Research Universities has increased moderately form 49.5 in 2021 to 51.1 this year.
As for the Group of Eight universities, scores per institution have moderately increased, from 68.1 in 2021 to 70.2 this year.
It is worth noting that it is easier to make gains as institutions progress from lower bands (e.g. 501-600 to 301-400 or 401-500). The higher the standing of an institution, the harder it is to make gains year-on-year.
Movers and shakers
Only twelve universities improved their overall score compared to last year. Of the six universities ranked in the top 100, UNSW was the only one which moved up, driven by the research quality pillar.
Of the four universities ranked in the top 200, Macquarie was the only one which moved up, also driven by research quality. QUT fell out of the top 200, despite being ranked among the top 200 four times in the preceding seven years.
Deakin moved up into the top 250 and is now in the same band as QUT and Wollongong. Deakin’s improvement was driven by stronger performance in the teaching and research environment pillars. Seven years ago, Deakin ranked in the 301-400 band.
Federation moved up from outside 600 last year to the 401-500 band. Federation’s improvement was driven by higher scores in the research quality, research environment, and industry pillars.
Canberra, which ranked in the top 200 between 2020 and 2022 editions, now ranks in the 401-500 band. Previously, Canberra’s outperformed other universities in the citation-impact pillar. ACU, which ranked in the top 300 between 2021 and 2023, now ranks in the 401-500 band.
Ranking methodology
Last year, THE introduced a new methodology for the 2024 edition, maintaining the same five pillars. However, THE increased the number of metrics by five to 18. In brief:
- The teaching pillar accounts for 29.5% of the overall score and consists of five indicators. One of these is the academic reputation survey, which weighs 15% of this pillar, along with four per capita measures covering student enrolments and completions, academic staff, and institutional income derived from information provided by institutions.
- The research environment pillar accounts for 29% of the overall score and consists of three indicators. One of these is the reputational survey, which weighs 18% of this pillar, along with two per capita measures (research income and research productivity) derived from information provided by institutions.
- The research quality pillar accounts for 30% of the overall score and consists of four indicators. The citation impact weighs 15% of this pillar and is based on Elsevier’s field weighted citation impact (FWCI). Last year, THE added three measures based on the FWCI with a twist: research strength (75th percentile), research excellence (top 10% of all publications by FWCI), and research influence.
- The international outlook pillar accounts for 7.5% of the overall score and is based on three equally weighed indicators. One of these is international co-authorship drawn from Elsevier’s Scopus database. The other two refer to the proportion of international students and staff. Institutions provide information for the latter two indicators.
- The industry pillar accounts for 4% of the overall score and is based on two equally weighted indicators. The first measure refers to the proportion of income for research and consultancy drawn from industry and is provided by institutions. The second measure refers to patents, measuring the number of patents citing a university’s published research.
Participating institutions
Over the past ten editions, the number of universities ranked globally has increased by 148% from 844 in 2016 to 2,092 in the 2025 edition. This year, there are 38 Australian universities, with the inclusion of Notre Dame in the 1001-1250 band.
For this year’s edition, 2,860 institutions submitted data across 133 countries compared to 70 countries in 2016.
The total number of universities from India included in the rankings increased from 42 in 2018 to 107, and China from 63 in 2018 to 94.
Among the top 500, there are 106 universities from the United States compared to 125 in 2018; 53 from the United Kingdom compared to 59 in 2018; 41 from Germany compared to 43 in 2018, 33 from Australia compared to 29 in 2018. The number of Chinese universities has increased from 12 in 2018 to 33 this year.
Despite the criticism of global rankings, there is still a strong appetite from institutions to participate in them. This is also a reminder that the world of higher education is increasingly being shaped by businesses practices.
Parting thoughts
In recent years, Australian universities experienced a modest decline in performance across the major ranking schemas. We are experiencing deteriorating performance across a range of metrics in all schemas. It will require greater institutional and sector-wide efforts to regain ground. Performance in global rankings reflect investment choices made several years ago.
In May, I noted that the cap to the number of international students to any of Australia’s 37 public universities, without increased public funding, will be detrimental to the viability of our universities and runs contrary to the interests of the country. In its first year of implementation, universities are likely to lose between $650 million to $750 million in foregone tuition fees.
Over the next five years, Australia could have fewer universities ranked in the world’s top 200 and even the top 100 across ranking schemas.
Angel Calderon is Director, Strategic Insights at RMIT University.
