The 2026 QS World University Rankings highlights the dynamic shifts within global higher education, with Australian universities maintaining a strong presence but facing mounting competition from their international peers. The overall performance of Australian universities reflects both their resilience and the increasing challenges they encounter as the global landscape becomes more competitive and diversified. I do not consider myself an ardent supporter of global university rankings, as these systems often oversimplify the complex reality of higher education by reducing institutional performance to just a handful of quantitative measures.
In light of recent “wake-up calls” in the media regarding the “disappointing” results for Australian universities,[1],[2] it is important to approach such results with caution and a critical perspective. Rather than taking the latest ranking shifts at face value, this report aims to offer a more nuanced analysis of the underlying factors that contributed to the decline in ranking positions among Australian universities.
Australian universities continue to demonstrate significant global presence in the 2026 QS World University Rankings, with 19 institutions securing places within the top 300. However, this year’s results highlight a broadly mixed performance across the sector. Only a few universities—such as Monash University, which moved slightly from 37th to 36th—saw a minor improvement in their positions.
Most leading Australian universities, including the University of Melbourne (dropping from 13th to 19th), the University of Sydney (18th to 25th), and the Australian National University (30th to 32nd), experienced noticeable declines. Some universities, such as the University of Western Australia, held their positions. In contrast, others, particularly those further down the list, like Griffith University and Swinburne University of Technology, saw further drops in rank. Notably, these shifts occurred even as many institutions continued to improve their overall scores, suggesting that rising global competition—rather than domestic stagnation—has made it increasingly challenging for Australian universities to maintain or improve their standing in the international arena.
As the media reports have focused on Australian top universities that lost their positions in the QS rankings, I provide a more detailed analysis of the University of Melbourne (UniMelb) to highlight the specific and contextual factors that affect the performance of other Australian universities. Despite an increase in its overall score from 88.9 in 2025 to 90.8 in 2026, the University of Melbourne fell from 13th to 19th place. The following table shows “overtaking” universities that scored lower in 2025 and got ahead of UniMelb in 2026
Universities that overtook Melbourne
| Name | Rank 2025 | Rank 2026 |
| The University of Hong Kong | 17 | 11 |
| Nanyang Technological University, Singapore | 15 | 12 |
| University of Chicago | 21 | 13 |
| Peking University | 14 | 14 |
| Cornell University | 16 | 16 |
| Tsinghua University | 20 | 17 |
| The University of Melbourne | 13 | 19 |
A detailed metric-by-metric analysis comparing the University of Melbourne to these “overtakers” (including the University of Hong Kong, Nanyang Technological University, and the University of Chicago) reveals that the University of Melbourne’s positive improvements were outpaced in key areas. The only slight decline in UniMelb scores was in the area of sustainability (SUS). In areas related to internationalization, including the International Student Ratio (ISR) metrics that reached a maximum (100 out of 100), they improved, though they were already high. At the same time, the overtaking universities made double-digit gains. The same trend, though less pronounced, is seen in Employer Reputation (ER), International Faculty Ratio (IFR), and Citations per Faculty (CPF). Only in the Faculty-Student Ratio did Melbourne slightly outperform the average gain of its overtakers, but given its lower baseline, the impact was limited.
Changes in the University of Melbourne compared to the overtakers
| Metric | UniMelb score 2025 | UniMelb score 2026 | UniMelb Change | Overtakers Avg Change | Overtakers Median Change | UniMelb vs Overtakers Change |
| SUS | 99.6 | 98.2 | -1.4 | 11.72 | 14.2 | -13.12 |
| ISR | 99.8 | 100 | 0.2 | 10.10 | 10.95 | -9.90 |
| ER | 93.9 | 97.4 | 3.5 | 9.13 | 4.35 | -5.63 |
| IFR | 95.1 | 96.7 | 1.6 | 6.92 | 5.25 | -5.32 |
| CPF | 93 | 94.8 | 1.8 | 5.37 | 1.85 | -3.57 |
| IRN | 97.4 | 96.9 | -0.5 | 0.77 | 1.05 | -1.27 |
| AR | 98.5 | 99.7 | 1.2 | 1.68 | 0.95 | -0.48 |
| FSR | 15.4 | 20.5 | 5.1 | 4.63 | 3.45 | 0.47 |
As the higher education landscape continues to globalize, established centers for international student and faculty mobility, such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, maintain consistently high scores in metrics like International Faculty Ratio (IFR) and International Student Ratio (ISR). However, these universities now face increasing competition from top institutions in countries that have made internationalization a strategic priority.
As the higher education field becomes more diversified, the reputation[3] of universities in academic semi-peripheries, regions previously considered outside the traditional core of global academia, is also expected to grow. While Australian universities generally perform strongly in reputation and internationalization metrics, there remains one critical area where they lag behind their international peers and where there is clear growth potential: the faculty-student ratio.
A key metric in the QS methodology is the Faculty-Student Ratio (FSR), which is often viewed as a proxy for the learning experience. Among countries with at least ten universities in the top 300, Australia’s mean FSR score (18.43) and median (15.10) are among the lowest, suggesting larger class sizes and potentially less personalized attention compared to counterparts in the United States, United Kingdom, and Japan (see Boxplot). This pattern may be partially explained by the high proportion of casual or sessional staff in Australian universities, many of whom may not be included in official headcounts for QS even as their work contributes to full-time equivalent (FTE) ratios. Given ongoing and planned mass layoffs in some Australian universities, the rankings of these optimizer universities may further go down. In this area, it is not only about rankings, but the bigger issue is the adverse effects on the well-being of staff due to overwork and the accessibility of professors for students.
It is essential to exercise caution when interpreting university rankings such as QS or other major systems. While helpful in offering broad comparisons, rankings are based on selected metrics and methodological choices that may not fully capture the complex nature of academic quality. Rankings often simplify academic excellence to a handful of quantifiable indicators, potentially overlooking vital aspects such as teaching effectiveness, community engagement, and institutional mission. Furthermore, differences in data collection, self-reported statistics, reliance on surveys, and the tendency to favor large, research-intensive institutions can introduce bias and result in misleading comparisons.
[1] https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/disappointing-australian-universities-suffer-major-slump-in-2026-qs-world-university-rankings/news-story/f80823ad3e9ad98404a456dee73012ac
[2] https://www.smh.com.au/education/wake-up-call-as-australian-universities-slip-in-world-rankings-20250617-p5m813.html
[3] QS Rankings reputation scores are based on two major survey: Employer Reputation (ER) and Academic Reputation (AR)