Framework and Methodology

Our Unique Approach to Global University Rankings

Our rankings framework consists of a set of ‘Quality Parameters,’ ‘Quality Indicators,’ and ‘Quality Metrics.’ These evaluation criteria address issues that are critical in today’s higher education landscape. In particular, there are quality parameters, indicators, and metrics that evaluate student career readiness, student learning outcomes (both knowledge and skills/competencies outcomes), internationalization, institutional and faculty future readiness, and sustainability.

Distinguishing Features of Our Framework >

The focus of our framework is largely placed on institutional outcomes.

The framework follows the ‘Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions.’

The framework’s metrics employ a continuous scoring function that ensures a smooth assignment of scores rather than a discontinuous and sudden ‘jump’ at metric scoring breakpoints.

The framework’s scoring system ensures that rankings scores are fair and proportional relative to their associated metric scores.

The framework includes a unique, personalized, and customizable ‘U-score’ rankings tool. U-score allows institutional stakeholders to create their own customized rankings based on the set of evaluation criteria that best suits their needs and interests.

(See:

U-score Personalized Ranking Tool)

Our framework does not include any subjective metrics relating to the reputation of the institution or any of its activities (e.g., academic reputation, teaching reputation, research reputation, employer reputation, etc.).

Although the existing rankings agencies employ some outcomes-related evaluation criteria, our framework includes outcomes-based criteria that are more robust, more comprehensive, and encompass more dimensions than those of the existing agencies.

We provide a ‘Quality Advancement Guide’ to each institution that participates in our rankings. The guide makes specific actionable recommendations that the institution could pursue for continuous improvement in each ‘Quality Parameter.’

The Global Rankings Landscape

The major global rankings agencies for institutions of higher education are based in Europe and Asia. Although the U.S. does have its own rankings organizations (e.g., U.S. News and World Report, Forbes, Wall Street Journal), only U.S. News and World Report (U.S.NWR) ranks international universities. However, the rankings focus heavily on academic research, reputation, and bibliometric data, rather than undergraduate education.

The U.S.NWR rankings neglect teaching, student and institutional outcomes, and continuous quality improvement. This creates a distinct bias toward elite, resource-rich, top-tier universities.

The rankings frameworks and evaluation methodologies of the existing rankings agencies are resulting in the following issues and challenges in the global rankings landscape >

Overemphasis on Research

Rankings prioritize research over teaching quality, which overlooks the student learning experience and student outcomes.

STEM Bias

STEM-focused rankings overlook excellence in the arts, humanities, and social sciences.

Halo / Reputation Effect

Elite / top-tier universities benefit from reputation rather than actual teaching or student outcomes.

Neglect of
Internal Quality Assurance

A focus on rankings can distract institutions from implementing an effective internal quality assurance system for continuous improvement.

Misleading ‘Best Fit’

Higher rankings do not always mean a better match for every student’s needs and goals.

Incentives for
Gaming the System

Rankings pressure can lead institutions to game the metrics instead of focusing on real educational improvement.

The IAAHE vs Other Ranking Frameworks

Existing global university rankings systems focus heavily on research, reputation, and resources – often neglecting teaching quality, student outcomes, and real-world readiness. This creates bias, misleads students, and encourages institutions to game the system.

The IAAHE offers a fairer, outcomes-based framework that emphasizes teaching, learning, employability, sustainability, and continuous improvement. By addressing the gaps in the current rankings systems, the IAAHE helps institutions to improve meaningfully and enables students to find universities that truly fit their goals and values.

Feature / Focus Area

Other Frameworks

IAAHE Framework

Primary Focus

Research Output and Institutional Reputation

Student and Institutional Outcomes

Evaluation Balance

Bias Toward STEM Research

No STEM Bias Across Parameters

Reputation Surveys

Weighted Up to 40% Based on Opinions

No Halo / Reputation Metrics

Internal Quality Assurance

Rarely Considered

Explicitly Included as a Parameter

Student Perspective

Minimal Inclusion

Includes Explicit Student Feedback

Outcomes Metrics

Limited

26 Outcomes-Based Metrics

Customization Tool

Not Available

U-Score Personalized Ranking Tool

Guidance for Improvement

Not Provided

Quality Advancement Guide

Inclusivity

Favors Elite, Resource-Rich Universities

Treats Diverse Institutions Equally

Quality Parameters

Our rankings framework consists of ten ‘Quality Parameters.’ These parameters are the general educational areas that are evaluated in our institutional rankings. All ten quality parameters are mandatory.

Scoring Weights / The percentage in parentheses for each quality parameter is the scoring weight associated with that parameter out of the total possible quality marks.

◉

Teaching (12.5% of Total Possible Marks)

◉

Scholarly Activity (12.5% of Total Possible Marks)

◉

Student Outcomes (12.5% of Total Possible Marks)

◉

Career Readiness (12.5% of Total Possible Marks)

◉

Internationalization (10% of Total Possible Marks)

◉

Future Readiness (10% of Total Possible Marks)

◉

Sustainability (10% of Total Possible Marks)

◉

Teaching and Learning Resources (10% of Total Possible Marks)

◉

Student Academic and Career Support (5% of Total Possible Marks)

◉

Internal Quality Assurance (5% of Total Possible Marks)

Quality Parameters

Quality Indicators

In our rankings framework, each of the ten quality parameters contains a set of ‘Quality Indicators.’ The number of quality indicators varies by parameter. The quality indicators represent the key component areas comprising each quality parameter and are assessed and scored by associated ‘Quality Metrics.’

Scoring Weights / The percentages in parentheses for each quality indicator are the scoring weights attached to that indicator. The first percentage is the scoring weight out of the total possible quality marks. The second percentage is the scoring weight out of the marks available for its associated quality parameter.

◉

Parameter:Teaching > Indicators >

1. Student Connectivity with Faculty (1% of Total Possible Marks, 8% of Parameter:Teaching)

2. Student-Centered Teaching (4% of Total Possible Marks, 32% of Parameter:Teaching)

3. Teaching Quality (7.5% of Total Possible Marks, 60% of Parameter:Teaching)

◉

Parameter:Scholarly Activity > Indicators >

1. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (6.25% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Parameter:Scholarly Activity)

2. Scholarship of Application (6.25% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Parameter:Scholarly Activity)

◉

Parameter:Student Outcomes > Indicators >

1. Graduation Rate (6.25% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Parameter:Student Outcomes)

2. Degree / Diploma-Related Employment Placement Rate (6.25% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Parameter:Student Outcomes)

◉

Parameter:Career Readiness > Indicators >

1. Experiential Learning (5% of Total Possible Marks, 40% of Parameter:Career Readiness)

2. Employability Skills and Competencies (7.5% of Total Possible Marks, 60% of Parameter:Career Readiness)

◉

Parameter:Internationalization > Indicators >

1. International Student Services (1% of Total Possible Marks, 10% of Parameter:Internationalization)

2. International Composition and Diversity of Faculty (2% of Total Possible Marks, 20% of Parameter:Internationalization)

3. International Composition and Diversity of Student Body (3% of Total Possible Marks, 30% of Parameter:Internationalization)

4. International Learning Programs (4% of Total Possible Marks, 40% of Parameter:Internationalization)

◉

Parameter:Future Readiness > Indicators >

1. Curricular Transformations for Future Readiness (3% of Total Possible Marks, 30% of Parameter:Future Readiness)

2. Personalized Learning Technologies for Future Readiness (4% of Total Possible Marks, 40% of Parameter:Future Readiness)

3. Faculty Preparation for Future Readiness (3% of Total Possible Marks, 30% of Parameter:Future Readiness)

◉

Parameter:Sustainability > Indicators >

1. Sustainability Efforts (10% of Total Possible Marks, 100% of Parameter:Sustainability)

◉

Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources > Indicators >

1. On-Ground Educational Facilities (2% of Total Possible Marks, 20% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

2. Other On-Ground Campus Facilities (2% of Total Possible Marks, 20% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

3. Technology and Support for Online Learning (2% of Total Possible Marks, 20% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

4. Learning Resources (2% of Total Possible Marks, 20% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

5. Educational Technology (2% of Total Possible Marks, 20% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

◉

Parameter:Student Academic and Career Support > Indicators >

1. Learning Assistance Services (2.5% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Parameter:Student Academic and Career Support)

2. Career Services (2.5% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Parameter:Student Academic and Career Support)

◉

Parameter:Internal Quality Assurance > Indicators >

1. Assessment for Institutional Effectiveness (5% of Total Possible Marks, 100% of Parameter:Internal Quality Assurance)

Quality Indicators

Quality Metrics

In our rankings framework, each of the quality indicators contains a set of one or more ‘Quality Metrics.’ The number of metrics varies by indicator. The quality metrics are the tools, instruments, and methods that are employed to assess and score the quality indicators.

Scoring Weights / The percentages in parentheses for each quality metric are the scoring weights attached to that metric. The first percentage is the scoring weight out of the total possible quality marks. The second percentage is the scoring weight out of the marks available for its associated quality Indicator. The third percentage is the scoring weight out of the marks available for its associated quality parameter.

◉

Parameter:Teaching > Metrics >

1.Student-Faculty Ratio (1% of Total Possible Marks, 100% of Indicator:Student Connectivity with Faculty, 8% of Parameter:Teaching)

2.Range of Student-Centered Teaching Methods Employed (1% of Total Possible Marks, 25% of Indicator:Student-Centered Teaching, 8% of Parameter:Teaching)

3.Extent of Incorporation of Student-Centered Teaching into Curriculum (1% of Total Possible Marks, 25% of Indicator:Student-Centered Teaching, 8% of Parameter:Teaching)

4.Student Evaluations of the Effectiveness of Student-Centered Teaching Methods (2% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Indicator:Student-Centered Teaching, 16% of Parameter:Teaching)

5.Student Evaluations of Faculty Instructional Style (3% of Total Possible Marks, 40% of Indicator:Teaching Quality, 24% of Parameter:Teaching)

6.Student Evaluations of the Overall Quality of Teaching (4.5% of Total Possible Marks, 60% of Indicator:Teaching Quality, 36% of Parameter:Teaching)

◉

Parameter:Scholarly Activity > Metrics >

1.Range of Scholarly Products Created by Faculty / Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (2.5% of Total Possible Marks, 40% of Indicator:Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 20% of Parameter:Scholarly Activity)

2.Extent of Faculty Engagement in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (3.75% of Total Possible Marks, 60% of Indicator:Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 30% of Parameter:Scholarly Activity)

3.Range of Scholarly Products Created by Faculty / Scholarship of Application (2.5% of Total Possible Marks, 40% of Indicator:Scholarship of Application, 20% of Parameter:Scholarly Activity)

4.Extent of Faculty Engagement in Scholarship of Application (3.75% of Total Possible Marks, 60% of Indicator:Scholarship of Application, 30% of Parameter:Scholarly Activity)

◉

Parameter:Student Outcomes > Metrics >

1.Graduation Rate at the Undergraduate Level (3% of Total Possible Marks, 48% of Indicator:Graduation Rate, 24% of Parameter:Student Outcomes)

2.Graduation Rate at the Master’s and Other Post-Graduate Level (2.25% of Total Possible Marks, 36% of Indicator:Graduation Rate, 18% of Parameter:Student Outcomes)

3.Graduation Rate at the Doctoral Level (1% of Total Possible Marks, 16% of Indicator:Graduation Rate, 8% of Parameter:Student Outcomes)

4.Placement Rate at the Undergraduate Level (3% of Total Possible Marks, 48% of Indicator:Employment Placement Rate, 24% of Parameter:Student Outcomes)

5.Placement Rate at the Master’s and Other Post-Graduate Level (2.25% of Total, 36% of Indicator:Employment Placement Rate, 18% of Parameter:Student Outcomes)

6.Placement Rate at the Doctoral Level (1% of Total Possible Marks, 16% of Indicator:Employment Placement Rate, 8% of Parameter:Student Outcomes)

◉

Parameter:Career Readiness > Metrics >

1.Range of Experiential Learning Opportunities Available (0.5% of Total Possible Marks, 10% of Indicator:Experiential Learning, 4% of Parameter:Career Readiness)

2.Extent of Student Engagement in Experiential Learning (2% of Total Possible Marks, 40% of Indicator:Experiential Learning, 16% of Parameter:Career Readiness)

3.Student Evaluations of Experiential Learning (2.5% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Indicator:Experiential Learning, 20% of Parameter:Career Readiness)

4.Range of Employability Skills and Competencies Incorporated into Institutional Student Learning Outcomes (3% of Total Possible Marks, 40% of Indicator:Employability Skills and Competencies, 24% of Parameter:Career Readiness)

5.Range of Curricular Methodologies and Techniques for Fostering Student Acquisition of Employability Skills and Competencies (4.5% of Total Possible Marks, 60% of Indicator:Employability Skills and Competencies, 36% of Parameter:Career Readiness)

◉

Parameter:Internationalization > Metrics >

1.Range of International Student Services Provided (0.25% of Total Possible Marks, 25% of Indicator:International Student Services, 2.5% of Parameter:Internationalization)

2.Student Evaluations of International Student Services (0.75% of Total Possible Marks, 75% of Indicator:International Student Services, 7.5% of Parameter:Internationalization)

3.International Composition of Faculty (1% of Total Possible Marks, 75% of 50% of Indicator:International Composition and Diversity of Faculty, 10% of Parameter:Internationalization)

4.International Diversity of Faculty (1% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of 50% of Indicator:International Composition and Diversity of Faculty, 10% of Parameter:Internationalization)

5.International Composition of Student Body (1.5% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Indicator:International Composition and Diversity of Student Body, 15% of Parameter:Internationalization)

6.International Diversity of Student Body (1.5% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Indicator:International Composition and Diversity of Student Body, 15% of Parameter:Internationalization)

7.Range of International Learning Programs Offered (1% of Total Possible Marks, 25% of Indicator:International Learning Programs, 10% of Parameter:Internationalization)

8.Extent of Student Participation in International Learning (1% of Total Possible Marks, 25% of Indicator:International Learning Programs, 10% of Parameter:Internationalization)

9.Student Evaluations of International Learning Program (2% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Indicator:International Learning Programs, 20% of Parameter:Internationalization)

◉

Parameter:Future Readiness > Metrics >

1.Range of Curricular Transformations for Future Readiness Implemented (1% of Total Possible Marks, 33.33% of Indicator:Curricular Transformation, 10% of Parameter: Future Readiness)

2.Student Evaluations of Curricular Transformations for Future Readiness (2% of Total Possible Marks, 66.67% of Indicator:Curricular Transformation, 20% of Parameter:Future Readiness)

3.Range of Personalized Learning Technologies for Future Readiness Implemented (1.5% of Total Possible Marks, 37.5% of Indicator:Personalized Learning Technologies for Future Readiness, 15% of Parameter:Future Readiness)

4.Student Evaluations of Personalized Learning Technologies for Future Readiness (2.5% of Total Possible Marks, 62.5% of Indicator:Personalized Learning Technologies for Future Readiness, 25% of Parameter:Future Readiness)

5.Range of Faculty Preparation Activities for Future Readiness (1% of Total Possible Marks, 33.33% of Indicator:Faculty Preparation for Future Readiness, 10% of Parameter:Future Readiness)

6. Faculty Evaluations of Preparation Activities for Future Readiness (2% of Total Possible Marks, 66.67% of Indicator:Faculty Preparation for Future Readiness, 20% of Parameter:Future Readiness)

◉

Parameter:Sustainability > Metrics >

1. Extent of Integration of Sustainability into Institutional Operations (5% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Indicator:Sustainability Efforts, 50% of Parameter:Sustainability)

2. Innovative Sustainability Initiatives (5% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Indicator:Sustainability Efforts, 50% of Parameter:Sustainability)

◉

Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources > Metrics >

1. Range of On-Ground Educational Facilities Available (0.5% of Total Possible Marks, 25% of Indicator:On-Ground Educational Facilities Available, 5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

2. Student Evaluations of On-Ground Educational Facilities (0.75% of Total Possible Marks, 37.5% of Indicator:On-Ground Educational Facilities Available, 7.5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

3. Faculty Evaluations of On-Ground Educational Facilities (0.75% of Total Possible Marks, 37.5% of Indicator:On-Ground Educational Facilities Available, 7.5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

4.Range of Other On-Ground Campus Facilities Available (0.5% of Total Possible Marks, 25% of Indicator:Other On-Ground Campus Facilities, 5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

5.Student Evaluations of Other On-Ground Campus Facilities Available (0.75% of Total Possible Marks, 37.5% of Indicator:Other On-Ground Campus Facilities, 7.5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

6.Faculty Evaluations of Other On-Ground Campus Facilities Available (0.75% of Total Possible Marks, 37.5% of Indicator:Other On-Ground Campus Facilities, 7.5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

7. Range of Online Technology and Support Available (0.5% of Total Possible Marks, 25% of Indicator:Technology and Support for Online Learning, 5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

8. Student Evaluations of Online Technology and Support (0.75% of Total Possible Marks, 37.5% of Indicator:Technology and Support for Online Learning, 7.5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

9. Faculty Evaluations of Online Technology and Support (0.75% of Total Possible Marks, 37.5% of Indicator:Technology and Support for Online Learning, 7.5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

10. Range of Learning Resources Available (0.5% of Total Possible Marks, 25% of Indicator:Learning Resources, 5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

11.Student Evaluations of Learning Resources (0.75% of Total Possible Marks, 37.5% of Indicator:Learning Resources, 7.5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

12.Faculty Evaluations of Learning Resources (0.75% of Total Possible Marks, 37.5% of Indicator:Learning Resources, 7.5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

13.Range of Educational Technology Available (0.5% of Total Possible Marks, 25% of Indicator:Educational Technology, 5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

14.Student Evaluations of Educational Technology (0.75% of Total Possible Marks, 37.5% of Indicator:Educational Technology, 7.5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

15.Faculty Evaluations of Educational Technology (0.75% of Total Possible Marks, 37.5% of Indicator:Educational Technology, 7.5% of Parameter:Teaching and Learning Resources)

◉

Parameter:Student Academic and Career Support > Metrics >

1. Range of Learning Assistance Services Available (0.5% of Total Possible Marks, 20% of Indicator:Learning Assistance Services, 10% of Parameter:Student Academic and Career Support)

2. Student Evaluations of Learning Assistance Services (2% of Total Possible Marks, 80% of Indicator:Learning Assistance Services, 40% of Parameter:Student Academic and Career Support)

3.Range of Career Services Available (0.5% of Total Possible Marks, 20% of Indicator:Career Services, 10% of Parameter:Student Academic and Career Support)

4. Student Evaluations of Career Services (2% of Total Possible Marks, 80% of Indicator:Career Services, 40% of Parameter:Student Academic and Career Support)

◉

Parameter:Internal Quality Assurance > Metrics >

1. Elements of Assessment Process Implemented (2.5% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Indicator:Assessment for Institutional Effectiveness, 50% of Parameter:Internal Quality Assurance)

2. Continuous Improvement Initiatives Implemented (2.5% of Total Possible Marks, 50% of Indicator:Assessment for Institutional Effectiveness, 50% of Parameter:Internal Quality Assurance)