By Muhammad Nur
I was invited by the Head of the Physics Department, Faculty of Science and Mathematics, to spark a discussion and share thoughts during a departmental capacity development meeting. The invitation implicitly suggested a strategy to enter the top 500 global rankings in the field of Physics and Astronomy. I agreed, but I requested that the discussion not be limited solely to rankings. Although I was actively involved in pushing Diponegoro University’s ranking efforts from 2007 to 2011, I now feel increasingly uneasy about how obsessed universities have become with rankings. Ranking efforts are expensive and can mislead us into becoming fixated on numbers. Achieving a respectable ranking (dignified) while also maintaining meaningful contributions to society and the nation (impactful) is not easy. These dual burdens are why I often tell fellow lecturers to use the “tilting flight” strategy.
UNESCO Criteria vs International Ranking Criteria
In May 2011, UNESCO held a discussion involving researchers, academics, policy analysts, students, and leaders of international institutions on the responsibility of higher education institutions and rankings. This year, UNESCO published a book titled Rankings and Accountability in Higher Education: Uses and Misuses (UNESCO, 2013). This book emerged from UNESCO’s concerns about the existing ranking criteria, which result in only about 100 out of over 16,000 universities worldwide being listed. UNESCO likely refers to rigorous ranking systems like Shanghai Jiao Tong or Times Higher Education (THE). Meanwhile, other universities—including those that educate the majority of the world’s population—are not included. This is a major concern.
QS, another global ranking agency, lists only around 700 institutions out of 24,000. This article focuses on QS because its criteria are more relevant and potentially achievable for Indonesian universities. QS emphasizes research output: around 30% of a university’s academic reputation is evaluated by experts, and another 20% is based on citation levels of its scientific publications. So, 50% depends on research quality.
Next, 20% comes from the institution’s ability to prepare graduates for employment and its engagement with industry and non-academic reputation. Another 10% is based on the student learning experience, reflecting the overall academic environment and support for all students regardless of socioeconomic background. The final 15% measures global engagement, including the presence of international students, staff, and international research collaborations.
The rise of university rankings has sparked concern—even within UNESCO. Rankings can push countries to focus on a handful of elite universities, potentially damaging national priorities and capacities. Regional scientific collaboration strategies may shift to meet ranking agency demands. In response, UNESCO advocates for building world-class systems, not just individual world-class universities. Focusing only on elite institutions is dangerous, as they require massive investments and often serve only a privileged group.
Governments must balance national priorities with ranking criteria. Higher education plays a crucial role in national development, but not every country can afford massive research investments. A wiser approach would be to frame higher education quality in broader, comparative, international terms. This opens up opportunities for universities in developing countries to gain recognition. With this perspective, global higher education can become more competitive in a multipolar world. Universities don’t need to overspend but must contribute to global knowledge—provided the contributions are published internationally.
A Broader Perspective on the Tri Dharma of Higher Education
The academic community is a university’s most valuable asset, including in Indonesia. The country has clearly articulated the Tri Dharma (Three Pillars) of Higher Education as the foundation of all academic activities: education, research, and community service. This triad has become a core part of university culture and even curriculum development.
Why then are Indonesian universities falling in global rankings? The weakness lies in the insufficient depth of commitment to the Tri Dharma among the academic community. In today’s global competition, universities and research institutions are key to national progress. Institutions must realize that the power of the Tri Dharma can only be harnessed through a broader perspective.
The first dharma should focus on sustainable human resource development. The second dharma should produce new science and technology through research and development. The third dharma should contribute to national development by transferring science and technology to society. These activities—whether carried out individually or integrated—can yield intellectual works that are disseminated to the broader public through academic publications, seminars, patents, licenses, books, popular articles, and more.
Such activities are what international ranking bodies value, as long as they are widely published and understood by the international community—serving as citation sources. The common thread is the ability to internationally publish Tri Dharma outcomes, a key metric for global rankings. QS allocates 30% of its score to peer review and 20% to citation counts. The more works published internationally, the more recognition a university gains, leading to higher citation rates and a stronger reputation. In this way, universities contribute to the advancement of science and technology.
(Semarang, July 14, 2025)