University Ranking - Must this be our Game?

Global university rankings have grown into a powerful industry since their emergence in 2003, shaping public perception and institutional behaviour far beyond what their methodologies justify. 

In Malaysia, as in many Asian countries, rankings have become an obsession among university leaders, driving questionable practices and diverting scarce resources into gaming the system rather than strengthening teaching, research, or student support. Governments, the media, and the public often use rankings to praise or condemn institutions without understanding what these metrics actually measure.

Malaysia’s higher-education landscape highlights the limitations of global rankings especially clearly. Public universities operate under ethnic‑based admissions quotas and national policy objectives designed to address historical inequalities. Private universities, by contrast, function as fee‑dependent businesses whose survival depends on enrolment rather than research intensity or global visibility. These structural differences mean that institutions are not competing on equal terms, nor are they pursuing the same mission. Yet global rankings treat them as if they are identical, producing distorted comparisons that penalise universities fulfilling national responsibilities and reward those optimising metrics irrelevant to local needs.

A further omission in global ranking criteria is academic freedom, an essential attribute of any true university. Ranking systems do not measure whether scholars are free to teach, research, and publish without interference. In Malaysia, statutory laws such as the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act, along with policy and administrative restrictions, place significant limits on academic expression and institutional autonomy. These constraints challenge the very definition of what a university is meant to be, yet rankings remain silent on this foundational issue. A system that cannot measure academic freedom cannot claim to measure academic quality.

To counterbalance the distortions of global rankings, the Ministry of Higher Education has developed domestic evaluation systems such as SETARA and MyQUEST. These instruments assess teaching, learning, governance, and programme quality — dimensions far more aligned with Malaysia’s educational priorities than international rankings. However, despite their strengths, public discourse continues to prefer global league tables, often to the detriment of institutional integrity and long‑term development.

Across Malaysian academia, scepticism toward rankings is growing. University governors and academics warn that rankings encourage superficial strategies, inflate marketing budgets, and shift attention away from widening access, improving pedagogy, and supporting first‑generation learners. 

Students and parents, meanwhile, often misinterpret rankings as indicators of teaching quality or programme suitability, unaware of how little these metrics reveal about the actual student experience.

If higher education is to serve its essential purpose — expanding opportunity, cultivating knowledge, and strengthening society — Malaysia must prioritise rigorous accreditation, academic freedom, and context‑sensitive evaluation over global prestige contests. The real measure of a university lies not in its position on a commercial list, but in its commitment to its students, its mission, and the nation it serves.