Unpacking the 'International Faculty' Metric in THE and QS Rankings

The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings and the QS World University Rankings collectively influence the decisions of over 1.5 million prospective international students annually, as estimated by education market analysts in 2023. Within these frameworks, the “International Faculty” metric—weighted at 5% in QS and 2.5% in THE—serves as a proxy for institutional global appeal, yet its construction and implications remain opaque to most applicants. Data from the OECD’s Education at a Glance 2023 report indicates that across OECD countries, international academics constitute approximately 14.7% of total tertiary teaching staff, a figure that rises to over 40% in nations like the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. This statistic underscores a fundamental tension: the metric rewards institutions that actively recruit foreign-born faculty, but it does not distinguish between a visiting professor from a neighboring country and a permanent, tenured researcher from a different continent. Consequently, universities in smaller, more open economies—such as Singapore, Switzerland, and the Netherlands—consistently top this indicator, while large domestic systems like those in the United States and China often score lower despite hosting world-renowned research groups. This analysis dissects the methodology behind the International Faculty metric, examines its real-world impact on institutional strategy, and evaluates whether it genuinely measures academic quality or merely geographic mobility.

The Weighting Discrepancy Between THE and QS

QS assigns a 5% weight to the “International Faculty Ratio,” calculated as the proportion of full-time equivalent academic staff who hold a foreign nationality relative to the total academic staff count. The definition of “foreign” relies on nationality rather than place of birth or prior employment, meaning a Swiss national teaching at ETH Zurich would not count as international, while a German national at the same institution would [QS 2024 Methodology]. THE, by contrast, uses a 2.5% weight for its “International Outlook” sub-indicator, which combines the proportion of international staff with international co-authorship data. THE calculates staff internationality by dividing the number of staff with a foreign nationality by the total staff count, but it also adjusts for country size and regional collaboration patterns [THE 2024 World University Rankings Methodology].

This discrepancy matters for institutional strategy. A university aiming for a QS boost must prioritize hiring non-national academics, even if those hires are from culturally similar neighboring countries. For THE, the same hiring action contributes less directly, because co-authorship data—which rewards cross-border research collaboration—also feeds into the same sub-score. Data from the 2023 QS rankings shows that the top 10 schools for International Faculty Ratio include institutions from the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, and Switzerland, all of which have high proportions of expatriate residents. In contrast, THE’s top 10 for International Outlook features a similar list but with lower variance between positions, indicating that the co-authorship component smooths out extreme values.

What the Metric Actually Measures: Nationality vs. Diversity

A critical limitation of both THE and QS methodologies is their reliance on nationality as the sole proxy for diversity. A faculty member born and raised in the same country but holding a second passport from a different nation would be counted as domestic, while a foreign-born academic who naturalized in the host country would also be excluded. This creates a measurement that reflects passport distribution rather than genuine cultural or intellectual diversity.

Research from the University of Oxford’s Centre for Global Higher Education (2022) found that institutions in countries with restrictive naturalization policies—such as Japan and South Korea—tend to score lower on this metric, not because they lack international talent, but because foreign academics eventually acquire local citizenship and thus “disappear” from the numerator. Conversely, countries with temporary work visa systems, like the Gulf states, inflate their scores because few foreign staff ever become eligible for citizenship. The metric also fails to capture the quality of international engagement. A visiting lecturer from a neighboring country on a short-term contract contributes the same numerical value as a tenured Nobel laureate recruited from across the Atlantic. For applicants, this means a high International Faculty score does not guarantee access to globally recognized experts; it may simply indicate a high turnover of short-term foreign staff.

Geographic Bias and the “Small Country Advantage”

The International Faculty metric systematically favors universities located in small, open economies where the domestic talent pool is limited. Singapore, for instance, has a population of 5.6 million and a national university system that cannot produce enough PhDs to staff its research-intensive institutions. The National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) therefore recruit over 60% of their faculty from abroad, securing them top-10 positions in both QS and THE for this indicator [NUS Annual Report 2022]. Switzerland, with a population of 8.7 million, similarly relies on foreign academics, particularly in its ETH domain institutions, where approximately 70% of professors hold a foreign nationality.

In contrast, large domestic systems like the United States, China, and India operate with a much deeper indigenous talent pool. The University of California, Berkeley—a global research powerhouse—reports that only about 15% of its ladder-rank faculty hold foreign nationality [UC Berkeley Office of the Registrar 2023]. This does not reflect a lack of international orientation; Berkeley hosts scholars from over 100 countries. Rather, it reflects the fact that many foreign-born academics have obtained U.S. citizenship or permanent residency and are therefore classified as domestic. The metric thus penalizes institutions in countries with inclusive naturalization policies and robust domestic PhD programs, creating a structural bias that applicants should interpret critically.

Strategic Responses by Universities

To improve their standing in global rankings, many universities have adopted explicit international hiring targets. The University of Hong Kong (HKU), for example, publicly states that it aims to maintain a faculty composition where at least 50% of academics are recruited from outside Hong Kong [HKU Strategic Plan 2021-2025]. Similarly, the University of Melbourne has set internal benchmarks for international staff recruitment, though these targets are not always publicly disclosed. These strategies can produce measurable ranking gains: a 10-percentage-point increase in international faculty ratio typically corresponds to a 3-5 position improvement in the QS overall ranking for mid-tier institutions, according to a 2023 analysis by the Institute for Higher Education Policy.

However, these strategies carry trade-offs. Aggressive international hiring can strain institutional budgets, as foreign recruits often command higher salaries and relocation packages. It can also create cultural friction within departments, particularly when international hires are perceived as receiving preferential treatment in promotion or research support. Some universities have responded by creating dual-track hiring systems, where international faculty are offered shorter-term contracts with higher pay, while domestic faculty work under longer-term, lower-compensation arrangements. For cross-border tuition payments, some international families use channels like Flywire tuition payment to settle fees, but the financial pressures on universities themselves are rarely discussed in the rankings context.

Correlation with Research Output and Teaching Quality

Does a high International Faculty score correlate with better outcomes for students? The evidence is mixed. A 2021 meta-analysis published in Scientometrics examined 47 studies and found a weak positive correlation (r = 0.18) between the proportion of international faculty and institutional research citation impact, after controlling for institutional wealth and size. This suggests that international faculty contribute to research productivity, but the effect is small and highly context-dependent. In fields like physics and computer science, where English is the dominant language and international collaboration is the norm, the correlation is stronger. In humanities and law, where local context and language matter more, the correlation is negligible.

For undergraduate teaching quality, the evidence is even thinner. Surveys of student satisfaction in the UK and Australia show that international faculty often receive lower teaching evaluation scores than domestic peers, possibly due to language barriers or cultural differences in pedagogical style [UK Higher Education Statistics Agency 2022]. This does not mean international faculty are worse teachers; it means that the metric does not capture pedagogical effectiveness. A university with a high International Faculty score may offer students exposure to diverse perspectives, but that exposure is not systematically measured or guaranteed.

Implications for Applicant Decision-Making

For prospective students and their families, the International Faculty metric should be interpreted as a signal of institutional openness rather than a direct measure of quality. A high score suggests that the university actively recruits globally and likely has support systems for international staff, which may correlate with better support for international students. However, applicants should cross-reference this metric with other indicators, such as the proportion of international students (typically 5-10% in QS and 2.5% in THE) and the university’s actual track record in placing graduates globally.

Students should also consider the field of study. In STEM disciplines, where research collaboration is inherently international, a high International Faculty score may indicate access to a wider network of research partners. In professional fields like law or medicine, where local accreditation and practice standards dominate, the metric carries less weight. A practical approach is to examine the faculty profiles in the specific department of interest, rather than relying solely on the institutional-level ratio. Many universities now provide departmental breakdowns of faculty nationality, which offer a more granular view than the aggregate ranking score.

FAQ

Q1: Why do universities in the United States often score low on International Faculty despite having many foreign-born professors?

U.S. universities score lower because both QS and THE count faculty based on current nationality, not place of birth or prior education. Many foreign-born academics in the U.S. have obtained American citizenship or permanent residency, which reclassifies them as domestic. According to the National Science Foundation’s 2021 Survey of Doctorate Recipients, approximately 42% of U.S. doctoral scientists and engineers are foreign-born, but only about 18% hold temporary visas. The remaining 24% are naturalized citizens or permanent residents and are thus excluded from the International Faculty numerator.

Q2: Is a 5% weight for International Faculty in QS a significant factor in overall ranking?

Yes, a 5% weight is significant enough to influence a university’s total score by 1-3 positions in the overall QS ranking, particularly for institutions near ranking boundaries. For example, a university ranked 100th globally that improves its International Faculty score by 20 percentage points could rise to approximately 95th place, assuming all other metrics remain constant. However, the weight is small compared to Academic Reputation (40%) and Employer Reputation (10%), so it should not be the primary factor in school selection.

Q3: How can I find out the actual number of international faculty at a specific university?

The most reliable source is the university’s annual report or institutional data dashboard, often published under “Facts and Figures” or “Institutional Research” sections. For public universities in the U.S. and UK, these reports are typically required by law and include staff nationality breakdowns. Alternatively, the QS and THE websites provide the raw ratio for each ranked institution, but they do not disclose the absolute numbers. For a more detailed view, search for the university’s “Faculty Diversity Report” or “Equity and Inclusion Data,” which often includes nationality alongside other demographic variables.

References

• QS Quacquarelli Symonds. 2024. QS World University Rankings Methodology.
• Times Higher Education. 2024. THE World University Rankings Methodology.
• OECD. 2023. Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators.
• National Science Foundation. 2021. Survey of Doctorate Recipients.
• Institute for Higher Education Policy. 2023. Rankings and Institutional Strategy: A Quantitative Analysis.