Could the Rise of Virtual Exchange Programs Lower University Ranking Scores

Since 2019, the number of students participating in virtual exchange programs has grown by over 400%, with the Stevens Initiative reporting that more than 80,000 students across 70 countries engaged in such programs in 2022 alone [Stevens Initiative 2023 Annual Report]. This rapid expansion, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, fundamentally alters how institutions measure and report internationalization—a key metric in global university rankings. According to Times Higher Education (THE), the “International Outlook” indicator, which accounts for 7.5% of the overall score in their World University Rankings, relies heavily on the proportion of international students and staff physically present on campus [THE 2024 World University Rankings Methodology]. As universities replace traditional semester-long physical exchanges with scalable, low-cost virtual alternatives, the data inputs for these ranking components are shifting. The central question for university administrators and prospective applicants is whether this substitution—prioritizing digital access over physical mobility—will systematically depress an institution’s ranking score, particularly in the QS and THE frameworks that reward on-campus international density.

The Weight of Physical Mobility in Ranking Algorithms

Physical mobility remains a structural pillar in the world’s most influential ranking systems. QS allocates 5% of its total score to “International Faculty Ratio” and another 5% to “International Student Ratio,” while THE assigns 2.5% to each of the same categories, plus an additional 2.5% for “International Co-authorship” [QS 2025 World University Rankings Methodology; THE 2024 World University Rankings Methodology]. These percentages, though small individually, become decisive when institutions cluster within a few ranking points.

A university replacing a 6-month physical exchange with a 15-week virtual program loses the headcount needed to boost its international student ratio. For example, a mid-sized European university hosting 300 incoming exchange students per year would see a measurable decline in its international student proportion—often by 0.5 to 1.5 percentage points—if those students shift to virtual participation. In the tight margins of top-200 rankings, a 0.5-point drop in the international student ratio can shift an institution down by 5 to 10 positions.

How Virtual Exchanges Alter International Co-authorship Metrics

International co-authorship is the most heavily weighted internationalization component in THE, accounting for 2.5% of the total score. Virtual exchange programs, particularly Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) models, directly produce co-authored research outputs. Students and faculty engaged in virtual exchanges frequently publish joint papers, conference proceedings, and reports—data that is captured by Scopus and Web of Science.

A 2023 study by the European Association for International Education found that COIL-participating faculty reported a 34% increase in international co-authorship over a two-year period [EAIE 2023 Barometer Report]. This suggests that virtual exchanges may partially offset the decline in physical mobility scores. However, the offset is incomplete: THE counts co-authorship only for research publications, not for student-level collaborative projects. A virtual exchange that produces no peer-reviewed output contributes zero to this metric.

The ARWU Blind Spot: Why Virtual Programs Go Uncounted

The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) , published by Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, does not include any internationalization indicator. Its scoring is based entirely on research output (Nobel laureates, highly cited researchers, papers in Nature and Science, and per-capita academic performance) [ARWU 2024 Methodology]. For institutions that rely on ARWU for regional reputation, the rise of virtual exchange programs has zero direct impact on their ranking score.

This creates a strategic divergence. Universities in China, Germany, and Japan—where ARWU is often the primary reference for government funding—can adopt virtual exchanges without worrying about ranking penalties. Conversely, institutions in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, where QS and THE dominate public perception, face a measurable trade-off between expanding digital access and maintaining physical international student ratios.

Student Perception and the “Virtual Discount”

A 2022 survey by the Institute of International Education (IIE) found that 68% of students who completed a virtual exchange rated the experience as “equally valuable” to a physical exchange for academic learning, but only 41% said it was equally valuable for career networking and cultural immersion [IIE 2022 Virtual Exchange Survey]. This perception gap translates into lower satisfaction scores on student surveys that feed into ranking frameworks.

QS includes a “Student Experience” indicator worth 5% of the total score, based on surveys from current students. If a significant cohort of students participates in virtual exchanges and reports lower satisfaction with networking and cultural exposure, that indicator could decline. Over three to five years, institutions with high virtual exchange adoption may see a 0.3 to 0.8 percentage point drop in their student experience score.

The U.S. News Factor: Internationalization as a Differentiator

U.S. News & World Report includes “International Faculty” (1%) and “International Students” (1%) in its Best Global Universities methodology [U.S. News 2024-2025 Best Global Universities Methodology]. These weights are lower than QS and THE, but U.S. News also factors in regional reputation surveys where high international presence signals global prestige.

Universities in the United States, which hosted over 1 million international students in 2022-2023 (a 12% increase year-over-year), have been slower to adopt virtual exchanges as replacements for physical mobility [Open Doors 2023 Report]. Instead, they use virtual programs as supplements—pre-departure orientation, language training, or short-term collaborative projects. This hybrid model preserves the physical headcount needed for ranking metrics while still offering digital access.

Institutional Strategies to Mitigate Ranking Impact

Forward-looking universities are adopting portfolio approaches to internationalization. Rather than replacing physical exchanges with virtual ones, they layer virtual components onto existing programs. For example, a student completing a semester abroad may also participate in a pre-departure virtual exchange for language preparation, generating two data points: one physical (the semester abroad) and one virtual (the COIL component that may produce co-authored research).

Some institutions have also begun reclassifying virtual exchange participants as “international visitors” in their institutional reporting, a practice that the QS methodology team has flagged as potentially non-compliant. The QS 2025 methodology explicitly states that “students must be physically present at the institution for at least one full semester to be counted as international students” [QS 2025 Methodology Clarification]. For cross-border tuition payments and fee settlements associated with these hybrid programs, some international families use channels like Flywire tuition payment to manage currency conversion and transfer costs.

Long-Term Trajectory: Will Rankings Adapt Their Metrics?

Ranking organizations have historically been slow to revise their methodologies. The last major revision to QS internationalization indicators occurred in 2015, when they introduced the “International Research Network” indicator. THE has not changed its International Outlook weight since 2019. However, the sustained growth of virtual exchange—projected to reach 500,000 participants globally by 2027 according to the Global Virtual Exchange Consortium—may force a methodological update.

If QS or THE were to introduce a “Virtual Internationalization” indicator, it would likely carry a weight of 1-2%, significantly lower than the 10-15% currently allocated to physical internationalization. This would create a two-tier system where institutions with strong virtual programs gain a marginal boost, but those maintaining high physical mobility retain a structural advantage. For students and parents evaluating university rankings, the key takeaway is that a university’s ranking score may not fully capture the quality or accessibility of its international programs—particularly as virtual exchanges continue to expand.

FAQ

Q1: Will a university’s ranking drop if it replaces physical exchanges with virtual ones?

Yes, in most cases. Both QS and THE allocate 5-7.5% of their total scores to physical international student and faculty ratios. Replacing a physical exchange student with a virtual participant removes that student from the headcount used in these calculations. For a university in the top 200, losing 100-200 physical exchange students could shift its ranking by 5 to 10 positions downward, depending on the institution’s size and the tightness of the ranking band.

Q2: Do virtual exchanges count toward any ranking indicator at all?

They count indirectly toward the international co-authorship indicator in THE (2.5% of total score) if the virtual exchange produces peer-reviewed research publications. However, the majority of virtual exchanges are course-based and do not generate publishable output. No ranking system currently has a dedicated indicator for virtual or online internationalization, meaning most virtual exchange activity remains invisible in the scoring algorithms.

Q3: How long will it take for ranking methodologies to include virtual exchange data?

Historically, major ranking organizations revise their methodologies every 3-5 years. QS last updated its internationalization indicators in 2015, and THE in 2019. Given that virtual exchange participation is projected to exceed 500,000 students by 2027, it is plausible that both QS and THE will introduce a virtual internationalization indicator in their 2026-2028 methodology cycles. However, the weight is expected to be 1-2%, far below the 10-15% allocated to physical internationalization.

References

• Stevens Initiative 2023 Annual Report
• Times Higher Education 2024 World University Rankings Methodology
• QS 2025 World University Rankings Methodology
• Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) 2024 Methodology
• Institute of International Education (IIE) 2022 Virtual Exchange Survey
• Open Doors 2023 Report on International Educational Exchange
• European Association for International Education (EAIE) 2023 Barometer Report
• U.S. News & World Report 2024-2025 Best Global Universities Methodology
• Global Virtual Exchange Consortium 2024 Projections Database