Criticism of traditional rankings – QS, Times Higher Education, and ARWU – has been voiced for years by Dutch universities. UT rector Tom Veldkamp once described these rankings as ‘revenue models for the wealthiest universities’. Reputation and quantitative factors such as citations and publications weigh too heavily.
Yet, like other Dutch universities, UT is torn: despite the criticism, international students in particular value rankings when choosing where to study. In short: a ranking is only as relevant as we make it. So far, only Utrecht University has put words into action, boycotting the Times ranking since 2023.
Since last year, UT has been focusing on two alternative rankings, which, incidentally, are still produced by the traditional makers: the QS Sustainability Ranking and the Times Higher Education Impact Ranking. Both pay less attention to quantitative factors and instead emphasise sustainability. However, UT is now pulling out of THE’s alternative ranking due to a revised revenue model.
QS Sustainability: UT at position 146
The focus seems to be paying off in the QS Sustainability Ranking. In the 2023 edition, UT was ranked 616 out of roughly two thousand universities assessed. A year later, UT jumped to position 177. In the most recent edition, published last November, UT climbed further to position 146. Under the scoreboard-journalism label: that’s 57 places higher than in the regular QS ranking.
The leap is easy to explain: UT did not submit data in 2023, but did so in subsequent years. The QS Sustainability Ranking considers many sustainability factors: from ‘academic reputation in earth and environmental sciences’ to gender ratios, the presence of a student union, and the number of open-access publications.
Joint first worldwide
In THE’s Impact Ranking, UT sits lower: between positions 401 and 600 out of more than 2,500 institutions assessed. Significantly lower than position 190 in the latest general Times ranking, but that doesn’t tell the whole story.
This impact ranking evaluates universities on their progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly in policy, research, education, and societal impact. UT chose to focus specifically on four SDGs: 3 (health), 7 (energy), 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), and 12 (responsible consumption and production).
For ‘health’ and ‘energy’, UT ranks between 401 and 600. For ‘responsible consumption and production’, the university performs better: between positions 101 and 200. But look at Sustainable Development Goal 9 – industry, innovation and infrastructure – and you’ll find UT at a joint first place worldwide, with the maximum score of 100 points.
That probably won’t last, as UT will no longer provide data for the 2026 ranking. The ranking organisers wanted to give paying universities an advantage. UT refuses to participate in that.
A matter of profiling?
What do these rankings really tell us? Not much, just like the entire rankings circus. Still, these alternative rankings do shake things up; whereas Oxford, Harvard, and MIT dominate the traditional rankings, these others feature Lund University from Sweden and Australia’s Western Sydney University at the top.
Perhaps the best conclusion: as long as rankings are considered relevant, they are mainly an opportunity for universities to profile themselves. The pride in that joint first place in THE’s alternative ranking, however, is not exactly radiating from UT. Just like with the general rankings, the university has shown little sign of chest-thumping in recent years. The only easily traceable ‘paper trail’: a general webpage about UT’s position in the rankings.
