Indian institutions seemingly shined in the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) rankings of top universities by subject for 2025. An unprecedented 79 institutes were featured in the list; however, these rankings should not spell relief for Indian higher education just yet, writes Anvitii Rai
How did Indian institutes fare in the rankings?
The subject-wise rankings by global higher education analysts QS were released last week, with 79 Indian institutions featured in the list, an increase of 10 institutions compared to last year, and nine figured in the top 50. The Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, earned the top position within Indian institutes, ranking 20th globally for Engineering – Mineral and Mining. Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Mumbai and IIT Kharagpur ranked 28th and 45th respectively. Other premier IITs—Delhi and Mumbai—enhanced their positions in the Engineering and Technology list, ascending to 26th and 28th place respectively from a shared 45th place. The Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad and IIM Bangalore both slipped from ranks attained the previous year—from 22nd to 27th, and from 32nd to 40th, respectively, in the Business and Management Studies list. Delhi University and Jawaharlal Nehru University showed an upward trend in broad subject categories, but crucial declines were seen in specific subjects.
How did they compare with their global peers?
Indian institutions appeared 533 times across subject categories, which is a 25.7% increase, with 156 universities improving their positions. India also had the fifth-highest number of new entries (at 10), trailing China, the US, the UK, and Korea. China had the highest number of new subject entries. Sun Yat-sen University and Xiamen University each added 13 subjects to their rankings. Meanwhile, Peking University saw 43 of its 50 ranked subjects improve, tying for the second-highest number of increases in rankings worldwide. While the Big Four study destinations—the UK, UK, Australia, and Canada – continue to hold their own, universities in Asia, notably Hong Kong, China, and Singapore, are moving up the charts at roughly three to four times the pace of the top four.
Overall, US universities came out on top in 32 academic disciplines, with Harvard University emerging as the best-performing institution, with the top spot in 15 subjects. It was followed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), leading in 11 disciplines.
Reasons behind the rise in rankings
The QS rankings score universities based on five metrics—Academic and Employer Reputation, Research Citations per Paper (with citations data is sourced from Elsevier Scopus), H-index (a measure of both the productivity and impact of an academic or department on a university), and International Research Network (by broad faculty area), accounting for 55 individual subjects across five broad subject areas. Thus, improvements in rankings can be attributed to having improved scores across parameters. For example, ISM-Dhanbad was ranked 41st in its category last year, with its best parameter being Citations per Paper (scoring 82), and the worst being Employer Reputation (53.7). However, this year, while its best parameter remained the same with a score of 84.6, its worst parameter saw a marked increase to a score of 67, meaning that while the institute did not register significant improvements for research, it worked towards making its students more employable. Improvements in rankings, thus, are institute-specific.
Much room for improvement
Overall, Indian institutes saw improvements (65%). However, some institutes saw their rankings slip as well. Additionally, India lags behind Asian education hotspots like China, South Korea, and especially Hong Kong SAR when the rise in rankings is considered. While these nations are quickly rising to challenge the UK and the US institutes in the global landscape, India is yet to come into the picture. If the specific rankings are observed, it can be discerned that India has a bit of a way to go within all parameters to be within the competitive range of its Asian peers. Significantly, H-index is the parameter with room for improvement—the quality and impact of research work conducted in Indian institutes need to move up several notches. Also, the Centre should look at hiking the share of GDP spent for higher education, especially for research & development in higher education institutes. Skilling should be another focus area for institutes as well as the Centre to enhance employability.
Interpreting the rankings
Different rankings use different methodologies, have different survey pools, and even data sets. Additionally, institutes are required to apply for appearing in some of these rankings. Thus, the full extent of an institute’s performance, impact and quality cannot be gauged by these sets of rankings alone.
For example, while IIT Delhi was ranked as the top engineering institute in India by the QS rankings (ranking 26), the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) rankings published by the ministry of education gave that spot to IIT Madras (ranked 53 in QS rankings by subject). The parameters considered by the NIRF are teaching, learning, and resources; research and professional practice; graduation outcomes; outreach and inclusivity; and peer perception. Thus, evaluating the quality of these institutes based on a single set of rankings would not give a true picture of their quality.