University rankings have long played a pivotal role in shaping the decisions of students and parents, offering a seemingly objective measure of institutional quality. For many, checking the rankings before selecting a university is second nature. But as reliance on these lists continues, an increasing number of critics—students, academics, and university administrators alike—are questioning their validity and relevance in today’s complex educational landscape.

When MBA student Nitin Bishnoi began searching for a business school, rankings were his natural starting point. “I don’t worry about their reliability,” he admits. “I’m sure they have done their research and due diligence.” His confidence in rankings reflects a broader trend: they have become an essential tool for prospective students. Yet, the question remains—can something as intricate and deeply personal as education truly be ranked in a meaningful way?

Unlike choosing a new smartphone, where specifications like RAM and camera quality can be compared directly, selecting a university involves evaluating subjective factors such as teaching quality, networking opportunities, and overall student experience. Despite these complexities, rankings remain powerful, serving as both a marketing tool for institutions and a decision-making aid for students. However, they are increasingly scrutinized for their methodology and influence, leading many to wonder if they are still fit for purpose.

Why Do Rankings Hold Such Power?

Michael Barbera, a behavioral scientist and adjunct lecturer, believes that human psychology plays a significant role in the appeal of rankings. “As humans, we love numbers. They provide a sense of order and classification,” he explains. “When we see a list of top universities, we assume those at the top must be the best. But we rarely question what ‘best’ actually means.”

Nat Smitobol, an admissions counselor at IvyWise, takes the critique further. He argues that rankings are a product of a “capitalist-centric mindset” that commodifies education. “We often take these lists at face value without critically assessing what they actually measure. Education isn’t a consumer product that can be ranked like a car or a phone.”

From an institutional perspective, the impact of rankings is profound. Marion Debruyne, dean of Vlerick Business School in Belgium, acknowledges their significance while highlighting their flaws. “Rankings create an illusion that small differences in ranking position represent large differences in quality. In reality, the gap between the ninth and fifteenth-best schools may be negligible,” she says.

Yet, these seemingly minor ranking shifts can have major consequences. When the University of Sheffield dropped out of a global top 100 ranking, the BBC linked the decline to a decrease in applications. This kind of pressure can lead institutions to “game” the system, using strategic measures to maintain or improve their positions rather than focusing on genuine educational improvements.

Flaws in the Ranking System

One of the key criticisms of rankings is their reliance on easily quantifiable but sometimes misleading metrics. Ron Duerksen, executive director of the International Masters Program for Managers, highlights salary as an example. “Rankings often prioritize graduate earnings, but those figures can be inflated. Schools may encourage high-earning alumni to participate in salary surveys while discouraging lower earners from responding. This skews the data.”

Similarly, acceptance rates can distort perceptions. More prestigious schools naturally attract more applicants, allowing them to reject more students and thus appear more selective. “If you’re just outside the top 50, breaking into that tier increases visibility and applications, creating a cycle that further boosts selectivity,” explains Smitobol. This metric disproportionately benefits wealthier institutions while failing to measure educational quality effectively.

Additionally, the obsession with ranking criteria can lead to what Debruyne terms “the lemming effect”—a tendency for schools to adopt similar strategies aimed at boosting their rankings rather than improving the student experience. “Some initiatives that genuinely enhance education may not impact rankings significantly, yet they remain crucial to a school’s mission,” she notes.

Finding a Better Way Forward

Despite their flaws, rankings remain a valuable tool for students and institutions alike. For Bishnoi, rankings played a role in his journey from India to McGill University’s Desautels Faculty of Management in Canada. And for universities, rankings provide international visibility. “They help us communicate our strengths to a global audience,” says Debruyne.

That said, there is growing recognition that rankings must evolve. Some organizations are already implementing changes. The Positive Impact Rating, for example, places schools into tiers rather than an ordered list, reducing the dramatic consequences of small ranking shifts. Meanwhile, more specialized rankings, such as the THE Impact Ranking and the QS Sustainability Ranking, focus on specific areas of excellence rather than bundling multiple factors into a single list.

Duerksen sees specialization as a crucial step forward. “Every university has a unique mission. Ranking them all using the same criteria is problematic. More focused rankings could better reflect what matters to different students and institutions.”

Universities also have a role to play in improving transparency. Barbera suggests that institutions should clearly explain their ranking methodologies in marketing campaigns, making it easier for students to interpret the numbers accurately. “If students aren’t going to investigate the methodology, universities should lay it out clearly. That way, they can make more informed decisions.”

Ultimately, a shift in mindset may be necessary. Rather than fixating on rankings, prospective students could benefit from a more holistic approach—one that considers factors such as faculty expertise, career outcomes beyond salary, and student satisfaction. Smitobol suggests alternative measures: “Why not track the number of Fulbright scholars a school produces, or how many students successfully climb the socioeconomic ladder? These metrics could offer a more meaningful picture of a school’s impact.”

Education is complex, multifaceted, and deeply personal. While rankings provide a simplified snapshot, they can never fully capture what makes a university experience valuable. Recognizing their limitations and using them as just one of many decision-making tools may be the best way forward. As Smitobol aptly puts it, “Rankings aren’t going away. But they should be just one of many factors in choosing where to study.”