Rankings shouldn’t matter, but they do

Any scientist can pick holes in the QS system. Its scores are based on four factors: academic reputation and employer reputation are subjective, while citations per paper and h-index citations are measures likely to drive pressure to publish. It’s also pigeon-holing different courses on offer: Cambridge students study chemistry as part of a natural sciences degree, a distinction not reflected by QS. Other factors not taken into consideration are course length, syllabus content, fees, or whether the campus has a half-decent bar. Yet the very nature of generic ranking means it’s impossible to encapsulate the multitude of variables that go into deciding which university is worth your time. Reptuation and publication data might not be perfect (and both have flaws), but they’re probably the best indicators available.