How do rankings affect the employability and skills of graduates in the global market?

It’s important to note that the influence of university rankings is highly context-dependent. In labor markets such as the UK and USA, they tend to be quite important. This is also reflected in the often-used employability measure by Rothwell and Arnold in the graduate employability literature, which incorporates the reputation of the university someone graduated from. However, in many other countries, rankings are far less influential. For example, in the Netherlands, employers generally care little about the specific university, as they are all regarded as offering high-quality education.

While there are many wonderful and “employable” undergraduate students at highly-ranked universities, let’s remember that there may be even more highly-capable and “employable” students who for one reason or another (systemic, socioeconomic, or cultural) do not attend “highly-ranked” institutions. Don’t let an undergraduate school’s ranking (or lack thereof) determine who you will NOT hire.

It actually saddens me to see students fret over the rankings while they should be eager to make the best possible use of opportunities that many universities, these days, are toiling hard to ensure. Nonetheless, the credible ranking frameworks are essential markers of the quality of education that one can get in top ranked universities, especially if they have shown consistency.

The traditional world rankings focus on research excellence and prestige, including academic reputation surveys, and given the restrictions on globally-comparable data across multiple borders, they say little about teaching quality and graduate outcomes. However, they do attract a huge global audience - the annual launch of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings is akin to the opening ceremony of the Olympic games in terms of a total media reach into the many tens of millions. So their biggest direct impact on the graduate employment market is primarily about institutional "brand". A student's degree certificate is a passport to a lifetime of career opportunities and the brand on the certificate really does matter.

The issue with rankings is not whether I (or you) think they matter but rather the fact that others do. So let's proceed on that basis.

Rankings little affect the employability and skills of graduates but it does affect where they get employed at-least for the first job, since corporates prefer graduates from better ranked institutions.

I’ll say it straight… rankings are irrelevant and cannot ever be trusted. I’d only ever want to meet the individual applicant and hear everything about their journey.

In my experience I have seen countless alumni take great pride in their alma mater being recognised for excellence across THE's rankings, which themselves are diverse in what they measure and reflect the evolving needs of global society. In particular, THE's Impact Rankings examine universities' achievements against the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, and thousands of institutions and many more graduates are leveraging their stories of success and achievement against these core issues with pride - as they should.

Slightly controversially - as an employer I would say rankings of universities are not a high consideration in the recruitment of students. In all honesty, the recruiters are just too busy to keep on top of all the league tables. For me, the university experience is the part I would look for and what the individual has gained and is able to articulate about their experience. Many large employers of graduates are no longer looking at CVs in the recruitment practice to reduce bias so often we wouldn't even know where the student had studied.

This has always been a probability play. It's not that any given student from a highly ranked university is intrinsically or inevitably more employable than one from a low ranked university... but that the selective trials to get in to and graduate from a prestigious and challenging institution have been seen, and often proven, to be more likely to filter for and forge those capabilities on average. There have always been plentiful exceptions at both ends of the spectrum. The idea of evaluating employability at an institutional rather than individual level applies when an employer is prioritising their spend and working their talent funnel, but it will likely fall down if used as a mechanism to evaluate an individual applicant.

This is changing. Society is increasing treating college education with an unprecedented level of skepticism. This is a bad thing in many ways. But there are some positive consequences. Employers are becoming more and more skeptical whether an Ivy League education = a good education. More important than anything else, the student needs to be ready to prove what they can do, regardless of where they went to school!

It is encouraging to see employers becoming more sophisticated in their selection of candidates - looking for real evidence of skills and competencies, beyond the very broad measure of a degree from the "right" (highly ranked) university. And rankings are evolving too, to offer much more nuance and granularity to support better decision-making, including employment decisions. For example, alongside the 20-year-old world rankings, Times Higher Education has numerous subject-level rankings, regional and contextual rankings and the extremely popular THE Impact Rankings - which measure universities' contributions each of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, across teaching, research, outreach and stewardship. It is a remarkably rich resource.

Rankings don't impact on an individuals employability or determine it, they impact on an individuals potential for employment in some cases, not all. Rankings can impact on an employers perspective of a student and where they studied.

Rankings are important for assessing the quality of universities. However, it's not the sole factor affecting graduates' employability. The employability of graduates depends on the eligibility and criteria established by employers. Additionally, it's a fact that not all highly reputed institutions secure the top rank in such rankings.

I'd say the ranking of a graduate's university in a league table is becoming progressively less important for UK recruiters. (Although not the case globally as careers and employability 'culture' varies considerably worldwide). It's all about the *skills* that graduates have and how they communicate them - not about where they went to university or who their lecturers were. As more and more recruiters move to using blind recruitment methods and skills based interviewing, the less an applicant's background has to do with their employment - and the more democratic the overall hiring experience becomes.

This is very, very rarely the case any more in the U.K. due to concerns about social mobility and diversity. Most employers would be appalled by the concept of only seeing students from ‘certain’ universities. On the continent and in specific sectors academic snobbery and institutional preferences do remain deeply embedded, but I would argue this is much more to do with reputation, history and alumni than rankings in league tables.

I don't think US News or any other site has much credibility anymore. I think everybody knows what the relevant tiers are. They're paid advertising for colleges -- full stop. If a publication wants to claim that NorthWestSouth State is better than Princeton, go right ahead. But it's not going to change anyone's opinion materially. Not to mention, who cares? I'll take the hardest-working kid at a state school on my team over the average Harvard kid any day of the week.

Higher education must find a balance between forward-thinking, innovative programs for future jobs while meeting current industry demands. Next, a focus on transferable skills that prepare graduates to navigate a rapidly changing environment is a vital factor. Honing skills like critical thinking, decision-making, and teamwork are essential across all areas of study.

It's important to recognize that while rankings can have an impact, they are not the exclusive factors determining a graduate's success. Professional skills, work experience, networking prowess, and personal qualities are equally pivotal in molding employability and career trajectories. Furthermore, employers commonly extend their evaluation beyond the university's reputation, delving into the specific skills and experiences a candidate brings to the forefront.

When employers do look for skills, they are often more interested in what you did outside the curriculum to differentiate yourself. More advantaged students, who don't have to work their way through university, have more time and money to engage in the unpaid extra-curricular activities that employers like. As a result, rankings should incorporate measures of the extent to which institutions incorporate skills-enhancing activities (placements, projects, etc.) into the curriculum and make them accessible to the students who need them most.

If you're reaching out to professors and staff members before applying, I recommend asking about this almost explicitly. The best learning experiences, I think, are when faculty and staff keep the college's mission in mind but are not simply retrofitting their objectives to meet the college's specifications. You want this to be dynamic. Faculty and staff should be using objectives to enhance their teaching, not just to boost the college's ranking!

Rankings incentivize universities to globalize and diversify their curriculum and teaching methods to align with ranking criteria. However, these rankings often lack a comprehensive assessment of skills and qualities needed in specific academic areas, which means they may not fully represent the quality of education in all fields. So, while rankings encourage positive changes, they may not cover all important aspects of education. Institutions must find a balance between ranking requirements and meeting the unique needs of their students and disciplines.

Industry trends are constantly evolving, and degree programs that keep up with these trends can foster a culture of innovation among their faculty and students, which can lead to the development of new knowledge and ideas that can benefit both academia and industry. With that, it's also really important for universities to not just value programs that make money, but align curriculum with industry trends to create internship opportunities, research collaborations, and other mutually beneficial partnerships intentionally for underserved areas such as diversity, equity and inclusion. We must not loose sight on what matters most (educating our future leaders) in favor of rankings or employability scores.

University rankings can shape graduates' skills. High-ranking institutions often provide cutting-edge curriculum, resources, and faculty, enhancing students' education. As a result, graduates may possess more in-demand skills, making them more competitive in the job market.

If institutions and programs engage in a race to the middle, homogenising themselves to comply with the perceived demands of rankings, they will neither meet their own objectives, nor achieve and sustain a high ranking. Many of the most coveted rankings either directly or indirectly value on reputation. And whilst excellence is an important factor in driving reputation, distinctiveness and originality are vital too. Furthermore, many rankings metrics are intrinsically retrospective. If an institution seeks to follow, rather than be informed by, a rearview measure that has been shaped the leading lights then they sacrifice their own potential to become a leading light. Distinctive identity is the vital nucleus of comparative performance.

Rankings are largely unhelpful and have a huge impact on HE as a sector, how strategy is developed, how funding is allocated and where our daily working practices are focused. We have become obsessed with metrics and what is convenient to measure and not necessarily what matters.

A student's perception about a particular University is fuelled by history and rankings - and always has been. The change since my University days in the early 1980's is this; the number of institutions that a student can apply to - 1,906 according to The Times (2024); the types of degrees they can study; and finally where the students are from. So how do they choose? You can tell a prospective student just how brilliant your campus environment is, the small class sizes, the quality of your course content, and that your employability record is better than anyone else for their chosen specialist field; they will choose a Russell Group University where there are 1,600 students and no chance of a personal education - rather than with you.

Ranking hardly existed over twenty years ago. The Universities relied on their heritage and reputation to attract talents and students. So building the reputation is more important than measuring the ranking criteria.

If you go and visit a university, are the conclusions you derive "comprehensive or objective"? Or are they influenced by what the university wants you to see, and perhaps by such arcane factors as the weather, or how much sleep you got the night before? Comprehensive? Really? Is that the minimum standard we should accept for any factor influencing an important decision? We'd never get out of the previously inferred bed. At QS we have always adopted George Box's viewpoint that, "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful". Rankings can play an important and useful role in narrowing the field of options from an ocean of possibilities, but they shouldn't ever subjugate the value of critical thinking and personal accountability.

Benefits over features! No one is buying the iPhone because it has fill in the blank advanced technology that very few people truly understand appreciate. We buy it because it connects us to friends and family, takes pictures of our cats and dogs and is a companion when alone in the dark unable to sleep at night. Like any professional selling strategy, promoting benefits will speak more authentically and honestly to your audience; education is no different. That's why campus visits and welcome days are still absolute vital in influencing student decisions on where to attend.

Increasingly, higher education institutions must play a specific role in addressing specific requirements in a country or region. Rankings could deflect focus on these national or local imperatives, in favour of aligning to ranking criteria.

One of the challenges is that rankings aren't cheap. It takes a lot of internal resources to contribute to rankings from gathering internal data, coordinating stakeholder participation, and even filling out the data and submitting. Do you hire one person to oversee the participation and coordination of all the rankings? If so, that's one less person in the budget for student services, admissions, etc. Rankings take up a lot of resources.

A coin always has two sides. In my view, ranking gives an opportunity for Universities in the global south who were not recognised globally on the map. Now it gives them a potential chance to compete with other established universities in the global north.

Providing prospective students with reliable information about the quality and affordability of a degree is essential. That said, accrediting bodies are the most appropriate entities for reliable rankings of colleges and universities to engage in ongoing improvement. Accountability is the hallmark of regional accrediting bodies like the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools - Commission on Colleges. Perhaps it’s time for media-based ranking groups to realign the methodology with actual peer-based bodies with expertise in higher education.

According to us, at Emerging, it's pertinent to explore how the approach of directly engaging with recruiters can offer valuable insights for higher education institutions. The data we collect from employers is crucial to understand what skills and qualities are most important according to them. An in-depth analysis of this feedback allows universities to adapt their curricula and strategies to better prepare their students for the workforce. A key observation from this data is that by working closely with industry, educational institutions can ensure that their programs are closely aligned with the market. By understanding and responding to market needs, universities can enhance their role in shaping well-prepared, employable graduates.

For international students, outcomes will become the single most important decision factor in picking a university. Rankings will become less important if they are not tweaked towards this metric. Becoming an institution intertwined with the regional community, a talent hub for the regional industry can be much more valuable in the future in attracting international talent than being positioned in a 3-digit position of an international ranking.

I think rankings would make a great case study for students to critically examine each factor and the impact. If a student is at a highly-ranked school and can objectively analyze something that benefits them, they are on a good path. I think leadership should review results the same way. Rankings are one component of reputation. The school's reputation can be used by some others, sometimes, to make assumptions and stereotype stakeholders about political views, wealth, test scores, social activities, etc. Institutions need to be transparent about their values and priorities and how they will measure progress and success so students can make informed choices. Data from rankings that is meaningful to those goals could be helpful.

There are opportunities to produce meaningful metrics. One institution I'm aware of in the UK is using a statutory measure of the graduate's own subjective evaluation of their career success as their primary key performance indicator - even though it doesn't yet feature significantly in league tables, which tend to be dominated by pre-determined acceptable professions and salary levels.

People love rankings because they help with decision-making and consolidate so many data points that are time consuming. So, they are here to stay. I think the opportunity for higher education is to make sure the metrics are addressing the wants and needs of the audience. I love, for example, how the FT MBA ranking has "aims achieved" for a metric. That is a meaningful data point for prospective students.

Grit and a growth mindset trump an alma mater any day of the week. Additionally, whilst the number of doors you have to knock on might be influenced by where you studied at a graduate level any employer that values where you studied 5 or 10 years ago over what you've done since, doesn't deserve you.

Think of rankings like a road map. It's a good starting point but you want to also check out other possible destinations and explore the streets less traveled. Maybe you're not a 'highway' driver so a rural route would be a better experience for you. Same with educational choices. Just because a school is ranked #1 doesn't mean it's the best fit for you.

Think of universities like gas stations. Sorry to take off the glamour for some. On your journey into the future (the road ahead), you have to stop at a gas station to travel further. In earlier times of universities, you just got gas and nothing else. Nowadays, you have almost shopping malls, and a lot of entertainment attached and you have choices to make. Though the knowledge is the same, the choices will define your future. In this context, rankings could be the car you are driving. It puts you in a good position to accelerate, but again, it depends on the set of choices where your journey ends.

From my pov as lecturer also tasked with employability, I can pretty much say with confidence that a good graduate outcome isn’t impacted by a university ranking. A good employer will look first and foremost at the skills and competencies of the candidate. My students have found excellent graduate employment.

Agreed, by virtue of going to a "good" school doesn't guarantee you a job. Conversely, going to a lower ranked school doesn't disqualify you from elite job opportunities. So don't let where you go to school define your hiring potential!

Lifelong learning is one of my personal tenets to being a knowledgeable Career coach in the Healthcare space. While education is important, I don't feel that there is a great importance placed on institution here in Canada beyond that institutions bragging rights. For example, my day work is at McMaster U. World- renowned, in the top 50 ranked in the world, Canada's #1 most research intensive etc. Most degrees offered could be obtained and are recognized the same from other accredited institutions. It boils down to the style of teaching and what type of learner you are. Problem-based, didactics, small group etc. play a much more important role in what is recognized as competent skilled employees. Just my thoughts though.

Quite often, higher rankings directly correlate with higher tuition fees. This could further embed historic inequity in access to quality education.