Korea chases global top 100, but world's leading universities take different paths

SINGAPORE, LONDON, SEOUL — Breaking into the world’s top 100 has become a common ambition among Korean universities.

However, the world’s leading university ranking agencies have a surprising response for institutions chasing higher positions: Stop chasing the rankings.

"The dog should wag the tail, the tail should not wag the dog," said Phil Baty, chief global affairs officer at Times Higher Education (THE), cautioning universities against allowing rankings to dictate their priorities.

"Rankings should inform university strategy and decision-making, not drive them."

Ben Sowter, senior vice president at QS, raised a similar concern, warning that universities risk losing their competitive edge if they all pursue similar strategies.

“The important thing is that you build a really nuanced strategy where you don’t have a whole group of universities trying to do exactly the same thing as each other,” he said. “In that context you end up competing with yourselves rather than necessarily distinguishing yourselves internationally.”

Global university rankings are evolving to reflect changing expectations of higher education, from helping graduates are able to find jobs to fostering international collaboration and creating social impact. But as the criteria continue to shift, simply adapting to each new indicator is no substitute for developing a clear institutional strategy built around a university's strengths.

QS has placed greater weight on graduate employment outcomes, reflecting growing expectations that universities prepare students for careers beyond graduation.

"Students want to know now not just that they're at a university with a great reputation, but that it is preparing them with the experience that they're going to need in the job market," said Jessica Turner, CEO of QS.

In its 2024 rankings, released in June 2023, QS also introduced an indicator measuring the breadth of universities’ international research networks, shifting attention beyond the volume of research publications.

THE has also broadened its assessment of university performance, introducing indicators measuring patents and research influence in 2023, while considering new measures of research integrity.

Baty said the changes reflect growing expectations that universities demonstrate their utility beyond academia.

"You can't really be a world-class university unless you're actually showing that you're having a real economic and social impact on the world," he said.

Strong performance, growing scrutiny

Korean universities have already demonstrated considerable strength in global competition. According to THE, the country's leading institutions outperform the world's top 500 universities in research productivity, patents and industry funding.

QS also described the presence of seven Korean universities among the world’s top 200 as a “spectacular achievement.”

However, efforts to improve their performance in the rankings have also raised questions about whether gains in certain indicators reflect genuine academic progress.

In March, two leading universities in Seoul came under scrutiny over allegations that they had recruited prominent overseas researchers primarily to boost their global rankings, despite limited substantive academic collaboration.

At one institution, international co-authored research output surged by about 51 percent over two years, raising questions about whether some visiting appointments were intended to inflate research metrics rather than foster genuine partnerships.

Korean universities, however, argue that rigid regulations on joint appointments and multiple institutional affiliations limit their ability to compete globally, prompting them to seek more flexible arrangements with overseas researchers.

They maintain that such arrangements are essential to fostering international collaboration and overcoming institutional constraints, particularly in fields requiring specialized facilities and expertise.

Competing beyond rankings

Many leading universities abroad, meanwhile, have taken a different approach. Rather than shaping themselves around ranking indicators, they build on what they already do best.

At the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), President Larry Kramer said the university would not change its academic priorities simply to improve its ranking position.

Specializing in social sciences, LSE has resisted expanding into engineering and other technology-focused disciplines despite their growing prominence in higher education. Instead, it is exploring joint degree programs with STEM-focused institutions to combine complementary strengths.

Kramer argued that the rise of AI could make social sciences even more relevant, as many of the technology's broader implications involve social and economic questions rather than technical challenges alone.

"I'm not going to change the program of education just because the ranking wants to emphasize A over B," he said.

Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore, founded just 35 years ago, has turned its youth into an advantage.

President Ho Teck Hua said NTU operates like a startup, moving faster than older institutions. It also chooses partners deliberately, collaborating with institutions across the United States, Europe, China and the rest of Asia, and building its deepest ties only with partners whose strengths complement its own.

At the National University of Singapore (NUS), President Tan Eng Chye said much of what the university invests in — particularly teaching — never counts toward rankings.

“Many of these things that we do actually do not count towards the rankings, but yet it’s the mission of our universities,” he said.

In Singapore, the government places greater emphasis on practical outcomes than university rankings, particularly when it comes to graduates' employment prospects.

Rankings as tools, not targets

Still, university leaders acknowledged that rankings remain influential in attracting students and building international partnerships.

"We obviously can't ignore the rankings," Kramer said, adding that LSE pursues improvements as long as they don't require the university to sell its soul.

Universities UK, an association representing British universities, similarly described rankings as a useful measure of institutional progress while cautioning against allowing them to dictate strategies.

Ranking agencies emphasized that rankings should serve as benchmarking tools, allowing universities to compare their performance with global peers and identify areas for improvement, rather a rule for steering institutional futures.

For Korean universities aspiring to enter the world's top 100, the distinction is increasingly important. Rather than tailoring their priorities to individual ranking indicators, universities face the challenge of using those assessments to strengthen their existing capabilities and develop competitive advantages that set them apart internationally and at home.