Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings is one of the “big three” global league tables, alongside the QS World University Rankings and ARWU (ShanghaiRanking) — see CASRAI’s side-by-side comparison of all three for how their inputs diverge at a glance. THE’s own methodology is a five-pillar composite spanning teaching, research environment, research quality, international outlook, and industry engagement, scored across 18 indicators. Unlike QS, no single reputation survey dominates the total; unlike ARWU, THE does use survey data, just spread across multiple pillars rather than concentrated in one. Knowing which pillar moves a given institution’s score — and which indicator inside it — matters for anyone citing a THE position in an institutional report, grant narrative, or benchmarking exercise.
The five pillars, and what’s inside each
As of the 2026 edition, THE scores every ranked institution across five weighted pillars totaling 100%, built from 18 named indicators. One of those 18 — study abroad — currently carries zero weight pending future implementation, so only 17 indicators actually move a score today.
| Pillar | Weight | Indicators inside it |
|---|---|---|
| Research Quality | 30% | Citation impact, research strength, research excellence, research influence (4 indicators) |
| Teaching | 29.5% | Teaching reputation, staff-to-student ratio, doctorate-to-bachelor’s ratio, doctorates-awarded-to-academic-staff ratio, institutional income (5 indicators) |
| Research Environment | 29% | Research reputation (18% of the total score on its own), research income, research productivity (3 indicators) |
| International Outlook | 7.5% | International student proportion, international staff proportion, international collaboration (3 indicators) |
| Industry | 4% | Industry income, patents (2 indicators) |
The 18th indicator, study abroad, is reported on THE’s platform but is not currently weighted into the overall score — it exists in the methodology as a metric THE intends to activate in a future edition, not as a live scoring input. An institution’s study-abroad figure can look strong or weak today without moving its rank at all.
Why Research Quality and Research Environment together outweigh Teaching
Research Quality (30%) and Research Environment (29%) sum to 59% of THE’s total score — more than the Teaching pillar (29.5%), International Outlook (7.5%), and Industry (4%) combined. That split is deliberate: THE positions itself as weighting research substance more heavily than QS does, where survey-based reputation alone accounts for 45% of the score. But it is worth being precise about where THE’s own survey component actually sits: research reputation is embedded inside the Research Environment pillar at 18% of the total — not a separate, clearly-labeled line item the way QS’s Academic Reputation and Employer Reputation are. A reader comparing “how much of each ranking is survey-based” has to look inside THE’s pillar structure to find that figure; it does not appear as its own row in THE’s headline breakdown.
This distinction matters for the same responsible-metrics case CASRAI tracks elsewhere: DORA and CoARA both argue against letting a single composite score stand in for a transparent account of what was actually measured. THE’s pillar structure is more granular than QS’s flat indicator list, but “spread across three pillars” is not the same as “not survey-influenced” — a research office citing a THE position should be able to say which pillars, not just which overall rank, moved.
The Teaching pillar is the largest single pillar, and it is not just classroom quality
At 29.5%, Teaching is technically THE’s single largest pillar — narrowly ahead of Research Quality. But three of its five indicators (staff-to-student ratio, doctorate-to-bachelor’s ratio, doctorates-awarded-to-academic-staff ratio) are structural proxies computed from institutional headcount and degree data, not direct measures of classroom instruction quality; only teaching reputation is a direct survey-based signal, and institutional income is a resourcing proxy. An institution can move its Teaching-pillar score by changing how it classifies staff or by shifting its doctoral-to-undergraduate enrollment mix, independent of any change in how well courses are actually taught.
How THE compares to QS and ARWU
THE, QS, and ARWU are frequently cited as if they measure the same thing; they don’t. QS leans heaviest on reputation surveys (45% combined). ARWU uses no survey data at all — it scores purely on bibliometric output and Nobel/Fields prize counts. THE sits between the two: it uses survey data (research reputation and teaching reputation), but spreads it across pillars rather than concentrating it in one or two headline indicators, and it is the only one of the three with a dedicated Industry pillar measuring patents and industry income. See CASRAI’s full QS vs THE vs ARWU comparison for the complete indicator-by-indicator table across all three systems, and the QS methodology guide for QS’s own weighting breakdown in the same depth as this page. For a computed, survey-free alternative to all three, see CASRAI’s guide to the CWTS Leiden Ranking and Leiden Manifesto.
What changes a THE rank, and what does not
- Research reputation and teaching reputation survey responses can shift a score without any change in output. Both are drawn from a finite pool of academic respondents; which institutions those respondents happen to name in a given year’s survey cycle affects two of THE’s pillars directly.
- Staffing classification changes move the Teaching pillar mechanically. Because staff-to-student ratio and the doctorate-related ratios are computed from institution-submitted headcount data, reclassifying staff or shifting enrollment mix changes those indicators independent of any change in teaching quality.
- The unweighted study-abroad metric does not currently affect rank at all. Until THE activates a weight for it, a strong or weak study-abroad figure has zero effect on an institution’s overall score.
- Methodology revisions are not backdated. THE periodically adjusts pillar weights and indicator definitions; a year-over-year rank comparison spanning a methodology change is comparing two different formulas, not a clean trend line.
- A rank change is not automatically a research-quality signal. With 59% of the score sitting in pillars that include survey and structural-ratio components alongside pure research output, movement can reflect reputation, staffing data, or income reporting as easily as it reflects a genuine change in research performance.
Frequently asked questions
Does THE use the same reputation survey as QS?
No. THE and QS each run their own separate reputation surveys with different respondent pools and different question framing — a “reputation score” from one system is not directly comparable to the other’s, even though both are, at root, perception-based indicators rather than computed research-output metrics.
What does the 18th indicator (study abroad) actually measure, if it isn’t scored?
THE reports it as a metric on institution profile pages, but it currently carries zero weight in the overall score pending future implementation — a preview of a future methodology change rather than a live scoring input today.
Is THE’s methodology more “research-focused” than QS’s?
By weight, yes: Research Quality and Research Environment together account for 59% of THE’s score versus Citations per Faculty’s 20% in QS’s methodology. But part of THE’s Research Environment weight (18% of the total) is itself a reputation survey, not a computed research-output metric, so the comparison is closer than “59% vs 20%” suggests on its face.
Can CASRAI’s Dictionary or CRIS infrastructure verify a THE score directly?
No. THE’s survey data and institution-submitted figures are proprietary to THE’s own data-collection process, with no public API or persistent identifier resolving to a verifiable, machine-readable score — the same limitation that applies to QS. Institutions wanting an auditable, field-normalized alternative for internal use typically pair a reported THE position with independently computed values from their own CRIS or bibliometric platform rather than relying on the reported rank alone.
