Mai Thi Quynh Lan

Main Article Content


The quality of higher education is only assessed through “experience”, that is, through participating in the learning process. As a result, universities increasingly have to provide enough information for prospective students to choose from. The rankings were born to meet this requirement of learners and universities. International university rankings look primarily at indicators that reflect the results of scientific and teaching achievement and often ignore activities aimed at developing local communities. U21's method of ranking the world higher education systems has covered these indicators in its methodology. The four modules of U21 include: Resources, Environment, Connectivity and Outputs. Out of all 4 U21 ranking modules, Environment is the module that South East Asia countries have the best rankings. In the rankings of modules, normalization by GDP significantly reduces the scores and rankings of countries with high GDP, but increases the rankings of countries with low GDP. U21 also observed the pattern of connection between higher education institutions and enterprises. For the ASEAN countries, the transfer of common knowledge is more important than linking with business in the form of share scientific publications. Most of the countries in the U21 ranking are rich and research-oriented. The author has analyzed the U21 ranking results of 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 of Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and drawn lessons learned for countries in South East Asia.

Keywords: Higher Education Systems Rankings, U21 ranking, ranking indicators, ranking of higher education system of ASEAN countries.


[1] E. Hazelkorn, ed., Global Rankings and the Geopolitics of Higher Education: Understanding the Influence and Impact of Rankings on Higher Education, Policy and Society, Taylor & Francis, 2016.
[2] G. Kováts, “New” Rankings on the Scene: The U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems and U-Multirank, In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie,
J. Salmi, P. Scott (eds.), The European Higher Education Area: Between Critical Reflections and Future Policies, Springer Nature, Cham, 2015, pp. 293-311.
[3] A. Rauhvargers, Where are the Global Rankings Leading Us? An Analysis of Recent Methodological Changes and New Developments, European Journal of Education, Vol. 49, No. 1, 2014, pp. 29-44,
[4] R. Williams, Global: A Good National System of Higher Education: The Lessons of the U21 Rankings, In: G. Mihut, P. G. Altbach, H. Wit, (eds) Understanding Global Higher Education, Global Perspectives on Higher Education, SensePublishers, Rotterdam, 2017,
[5] A. Verbytska, N. Kholiavko, Competitiveness of Higher Education System: International Dimension, Economics & Education, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2020, pp. 7-14,
[6] B. Millot, International Rankings: Universities vs, Higher Education Systems, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 40, 2015, pp. 156-165.
[7] S. Writer, QS Higher Education System Strength Rankings - Methodology, updated March 8, 2021,, 2021 (accessed on: May 6th, 2021).
[8] R. Williams, G. D. Rassenfosse, P. Jensen, S. Marginson, The Determinants of Quality National Higher Education Systems, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2013, pp. 599-611,
[9] R. Williams, A. Leahy, U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems 2019, The report, 2019,, 2019 (accessed on: May 6th, 2021).
[10] B. Sowter, H. Shadi, D. Reggio, Ranking World Universities: A Decade of Refinement, and the Road Ahead, In: K. Downing, F. A. Ganotice Jr, (eds), World University Rankings and the Future of Higher Education, IGI Global, 2017, pp. 1-24.
[11] U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems,, 2020 (accessed on: May 6th, 2021).
[12] R. Williams, Connectivity of National Systems of Higher Education: Evidence from the U21 Rankings, International Higher Education, Vol. 98, 2019, pp. 2-3,, 2019 (accessed on: May 6th, 2021).