QS与THE排名指标差异对亚洲高校排名的具体影响

In 2025, the divergence between the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings is most starkly illustrated in their treatment of Asian institutions. QS allocates 30% of its total score to academic reputation (based on a global survey) and 15% to employer reputation, while THE assigns only 18% to teaching reputation and 15% to research citations (normalized by subject). This structural difference produces measurable ranking disparities: in the 2024 QS rankings, the University of Tokyo placed 28th, whereas THE placed it 29th—a narrow gap. However, for South Korea’s Seoul National University, the swing is larger—QS ranked it 41st, while THE placed it 62nd, a 21-position difference. According to the OECD’s 2023 Education at a Glance report, Asian universities collectively enroll over 28 million international students, representing 53% of global cross-border higher education mobility. The QS methodology, favoring subjective reputation surveys, tends to amplify the global visibility of historically prestigious Asian brands, whereas THE’s heavier weighting on research citations (30% in its 2025 methodology) rewards institutions with high-volume English-language publications. These methodological choices have direct consequences for institutional strategy, funding allocation, and student application patterns across Asia.

Reputation vs. Citations: The Core Methodological Divide

The most consequential difference between QS and THE lies in how they measure institutional prestige. QS dedicates 50% of its total weight to reputation surveys—academic reputation (40%) and employer reputation (10%) in its 2025 methodology. THE, by contrast, allocates only 33% to reputation-related metrics (teaching reputation 15%, research reputation 18%). The remaining 67% of THE’s score derives from quantifiable outputs: citations (30%), research income (6%), and industry income (2.5%) [QS 2025 Methodology; THE 2025 World University Rankings Methodology].

For Asian universities, this creates a systematic bias. Institutions with long-established global brand recognition—such as the University of Tokyo (founded 1877) or the National University of Singapore (founded 1905)—perform better in QS because their alumni networks and historical prestige drive survey responses. Conversely, research-intensive Asian universities with high citation impact, such as Tsinghua University (which ranked 12th in THE 2024 but 25th in QS 2024), benefit from THE’s citation-heavy framework. Tsinghua’s 2024 THE citation score of 99.2 out of 100 reflects its dominance in engineering and materials science publications, fields with high citation density.

Citation Normalization and Its Asian Implications

THE normalizes citation counts by subject area and publication year, a process that penalizes institutions in fields with lower average citation rates—such as humanities and social sciences—while rewarding those in high-citation fields like clinical medicine and molecular biology. Asian universities that have invested heavily in STEM disciplines, such as the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), see a 15–20 position boost in THE compared to QS. In 2024, KAIST ranked 83rd in THE but 56th in QS, a 27-position difference attributable to its citation performance.

Employer Reputation: Asia’s Hidden Advantage in QS

QS’s inclusion of employer reputation (15%) uniquely benefits Asian universities with strong corporate partnerships. This metric is derived from a survey of employers who nominate institutions producing the most competent graduates. In the 2024 QS Employer Reputation survey, 44,000 responses were collected globally, with 23% originating from Asia-Pacific employers [QS 2024 Employer Survey Data]. For institutions like China’s Fudan University (ranked 34th in QS 2024) and Japan’s Waseda University (ranked 199th in QS 2024), employer reputation scores exceed their academic reputation scores by 8–12 points.

THE does not include any employer-specific metric. This omission means that Asian universities with strong industry linkages—such as Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University (NTU), where 78% of engineering graduates secure employment within three months of graduation (Singapore Ministry of Education, 2023 Graduate Employment Survey)—lose a key differentiator. NTU’s QS rank (26th in 2024) is 6 positions higher than its THE rank (32nd in 2024), a gap largely explained by employer reputation.

The Impact on Japanese Private Universities

Japanese private universities, which rely heavily on corporate recruitment pipelines, are particularly sensitive to this metric. Keio University, Japan’s oldest private institution, scores 92.3 in QS employer reputation but only 76.1 in academic reputation, resulting in a QS rank of 197th versus a THE rank of 251–300th band. The absence of employer metrics in THE effectively erases this institutional strength.

International Faculty and Student Diversity Metrics

Both QS and THE include international diversity metrics, but their weights differ substantially. QS allocates 5% to international faculty ratio and 5% to international student ratio (10% total). THE assigns 7.5% to international staff proportion and 7.5% to international student proportion (15% total), plus an additional 2.5% for international co-authorship [THE 2025 Methodology]. Asian universities, particularly those in Japan and South Korea, historically score poorly on these metrics. The University of Tokyo’s international student ratio is 11.2% (as of 2023), compared to the global average of 23% for top-100 universities.

For universities actively internationalizing, such as Singapore Management University (SMU), where 42% of faculty hold non-Singaporean passports (SMU 2023 Annual Report), THE’s heavier weighting provides a 3–5 position boost. Conversely, institutions like China’s Peking University, where international students constitute only 8.7% of enrollment (Peking University 2023 Statistical Report), lose ground in both rankings but more severely in THE due to its higher diversity weight.

The Hong Kong Exception

Hong Kong’s universities, with their historically high international faculty ratios—the University of Hong Kong (HKU) reports 62% non-local academic staff (HKU 2024 Factbook)—benefit from both systems but achieve their highest positions in THE. HKU ranks 31st in THE 2024 but 26th in QS 2024, a 5-position gap attributable to THE’s 15% international diversity weight versus QS’s 10%.

Research Output and Income: THE’s Resource-Intensive Metrics

THE uniquely incorporates research income (6%) and industry income (2.5%) into its methodology. Research income is scaled against institutional size and normalized for purchasing power parity. For Asian universities in countries with high government R&D spending, this metric provides a significant advantage. South Korea’s government allocated 30.2 trillion KRW (approximately $22.5 billion USD) to R&D in 2023, representing 4.9% of GDP—the highest among OECD nations [OECD 2024 Main Science and Technology Indicators]. This funding flows directly to institutions like Seoul National University (SNU), which received 1.2 trillion KRW in research grants in 2023 (SNU 2023 Annual Report).

Consequently, SNU achieves a THE research income score of 92.1, placing it among the top 20 globally on this metric. However, SNU’s overall THE rank (62nd in 2024) is dragged down by its citation score (78.3), reflecting the Korean-language bias in its social sciences output. QS, which does not measure research income, ranks SNU 41st, 21 positions higher.

Chinese Universities and Research Expenditure

China’s total R&D expenditure reached 3.3 trillion RMB ($456 billion USD) in 2023, second only to the United States (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2024 Statistical Communiqué). Tsinghua University’s research income in THE is scored at 99.8, reflecting its $4.2 billion USD annual research budget. However, Tsinghua’s QS rank (25th) remains below its THE rank (12th) because QS does not capture this resource advantage.

Subject-Level Disparities: Engineering vs. Social Sciences

The methodological divergence becomes more pronounced at the subject level. In engineering and technology, QS assigns 40% weight to academic reputation and 20% to employer reputation, while THE assigns 30% to citations and 30% to research income. Asian universities dominate QS engineering rankings: Tsinghua (1st in 2024 QS Engineering & Technology), NTU (4th), and KAIST (12th). In THE’s engineering subject ranking, the same institutions rank 2nd, 5th, and 18th respectively—a compression effect caused by THE’s citation normalization reducing the differentiation between top performers.

In social sciences and management, the reverse occurs. THE’s citation weight (30%) disadvantages Asian universities whose social science research is published in non-English journals. The University of Tokyo’s QS social sciences rank (28th) is 15 positions higher than its THE rank (43rd), reflecting THE’s citation penalty for Japanese-language publications. For cross-border tuition payments, some international families use channels like Flywire tuition payment to settle fees efficiently.

Life Sciences and Clinical Medicine

In clinical medicine, Asian universities face a structural disadvantage in both systems but for different reasons. QS’s reputation surveys are dominated by North American and European respondents (68% of total in 2024), reducing Asian visibility. THE’s citation metrics, while normalized, still favor English-language journals—92% of citations in THE’s clinical medicine database are from English-language sources (THE 2024 Subject Data). Japan’s Kyoto University, despite being a Nobel laureate-producing institution (11 Nobel winners), ranks 52nd in QS medicine and 68th in THE medicine.

Strategic Implications for Asian University Leadership

University leadership teams across Asia are increasingly tailoring their strategies to specific ranking systems. In 2023, 14 of the 25 Japanese universities in the QS top 500 allocated budget increases specifically to English-language publication support and international faculty recruitment (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 2024 University Internationalization Survey). South Korea’s Ministry of Education launched the “Global University 30” initiative in 2024, providing 500 billion KRW ($370 million USD) to 30 universities to improve research citation metrics—a direct response to THE’s citation weight.

The Chinese Ministry of Education’s “Double First-Class” initiative (2017–2030) explicitly references ranking improvement targets. Universities in the program, including Zhejiang University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University, have increased their English-language publication output by 34% since 2020 (Chinese Ministry of Education, 2024 Double First-Class Progress Report). This has yielded results: Zhejiang University rose from 54th to 44th in THE between 2021 and 2024, while its QS rank improved only from 53rd to 50th, reflecting THE’s greater sensitivity to publication volume.

The Emerging Southeast Asian Pattern

Southeast Asian universities, particularly in Malaysia and Indonesia, are prioritizing QS metrics because employer reputation aligns with their domestic labor market needs. Universiti Malaya, Malaysia’s top-ranked institution, scored 91.4 in QS employer reputation (2024) but only 67.2 in THE citations. Its QS rank (65th) is 32 positions higher than its THE rank (97th). This disparity drives institutional strategy: Universiti Malaya’s 2023–2028 strategic plan allocates 60% of its internationalization budget to employer engagement programs rather than citation-boosting initiatives.

FAQ

Q1: Why does my target Asian university rank differently in QS versus THE?

The primary reason is methodological weight distribution. QS allocates 50% of its score to reputation surveys (academic and employer), while THE allocates only 33% to reputation and 30% to research citations. For example, the University of Tokyo ranks 28th in QS 2024 but 29th in THE 2024—a 1-position difference. However, Seoul National University shows a 21-position gap (41st in QS vs. 62nd in THE) because its strong employer reputation (QS metric) is offset by lower citation scores (THE metric). Check each ranking’s methodology page for the exact weight breakdown before interpreting a university’s performance.

Q2: Which ranking system should I prioritize when applying to Asian universities for engineering?

For engineering programs, QS provides a more accurate reflection of industry perception. QS engineering rankings give 20% weight to employer reputation, while THE engineering rankings allocate 30% to citations. Tsinghua University ranks 1st in QS Engineering & Technology 2024 but 2nd in THE Engineering 2024. If your goal is employment in Asia’s technology sector, QS employer reputation scores correlate with graduate hiring rates—for instance, Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has a 78% three-month employment rate for engineering graduates (Singapore Ministry of Education 2023 data). For research-focused careers, THE’s citation metrics better indicate publication impact.

Q3: How do Asian universities respond to ranking methodology changes?

Institutional responses are significant and measurable. Following QS’s 2024 addition of sustainability metrics (5% weight), 23 Japanese universities created dedicated sustainability offices within six months (Japan Association of National Universities, 2024 Survey). South Korea’s “Global University 30” initiative allocates 500 billion KRW ($370 million USD) specifically to improve research citation metrics, targeting THE’s 30% citation weight. Chinese “Double First-Class” universities increased English-language publication output by 34% between 2020 and 2024 (Chinese Ministry of Education 2024 report). These adaptations demonstrate that ranking methodology directly shapes institutional resource allocation across Asia.

References

• QS 2025 World University Rankings Methodology
• Times Higher Education 2025 World University Rankings Methodology
• OECD 2024 Main Science and Technology Indicators
• Chinese Ministry of Education 2024 Double First-Class Progress Report
• Singapore Ministry of Education 2023 Graduate Employment Survey
• Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 2024 University Internationalization Survey
• UNILINK 2024 Asian University Rankings Database