By Assoc. Prof. Ir. Dr. Nahrizul Adib Kadri
A recent critique of Malaysian universities’ obsession with rankings (Malaysian universities’ futile chase for ranking, The Sun) raises important points, especially regarding how the pursuit of these metrics can overshadow the core mission of institutions. As academicians, however, we are trained to evaluate issues using the correct lens. Yes, while rankings may not be a perfect system, they are not without merit. A balanced discourse on this subject would not only highlight the flaws but also acknowledge the potential benefits rankings bring to our universities.
There’s no denying that the chase for rankings can divert resources and focus away from what truly matters—quality education, meaningful research, and community contributions. The writer rightly points out that celebrating marginal ranking improvements, such as moving from 469th to 463rd, can feel misplaced if fundamental issues within our universities remain unaddressed. His call to focus on strengthening the basics—improving student input and ensuring academic and research relevance—is very much well-founded. After all, rankings are only as meaningful as the quality they reflect.
However, dismissing rankings entirely overlooks the opportunities they present. At their best, rankings provide benchmarks that allow universities to identify areas for growth. For Malaysian institutions aspiring to compete on a global stage, rankings can help attract international partnerships, research funding, and talented lecturers and students. They serve as external motivators, pushing universities to continuously improve their teaching standards, research output, and infrastructure. The key, therefore, is not to abandon rankings in its entirety but to engage with them critically, using them as a tool to guide our progress.
Take UM’s recent performance in the QS World University Rankings: Asia, where it achieved 12th place. Beyond the celebration, this milestone reflects years of hard work in improving research capacity, fostering collaborations, and attracting international students. These are tangible improvements that benefit not just the university, but also the broader Malaysian academic ecosystem. It is also worth noting that rankings like QS include diverse metrics, such as employer reputation and internationalization, which, while imperfect, provide some insight into how institutions prepare their students for the real world.
The writer’s critique of local research relevance is another valid point that deserves attention. The lack of rigorous studies on issues critical to Malaysia, such as financial mismanagement or leveraging our extensive coastline for marine biology research, is indeed a missed opportunity. But this isn’t necessarily a flaw in rankings themselves. It reflects deeper issues in research priorities and funding allocations within our universities. Instead of dismissing rankings outright, perhaps they can be leveraged to incentivize research that addresses both national challenges and global frontiers.
What’s more, comparing rankings to a superficial fashion contest, as the writer did in his article, risks oversimplifying the conversation. Universities are complex institutions with diverse stakeholders, and rankings are just one lens through which they can be evaluated. It’s not about choosing between chasing rankings and focusing on fundamentals. The two can coexist. By addressing fundamental issues—such as improving student intake, strengthening academic hiring criteria, and enhancing research relevance—Malaysian universities will naturally rise in rankings as a by-product of their genuine quality.
As academicians, we also have a responsibility to foster balanced discussions. The writer’s argument against rankings could have been strengthened by acknowledging their positive aspects, even while critiquing their flaws. After all, ranking systems are not inherently bad—they are tools. How we use those tools determines whether they become a distraction or a driver of meaningful progress.
Ultimately, the focus for our universities should be clear: to serve students, communities (including global stakeholders), and the nation. Rankings can provide useful insights, but they should never overshadow the larger purpose of education. At the same time, let us not dismiss the value they bring, particularly in showcasing progress and attracting global attention.
The challenge lies in finding a middle ground. If we approach rankings with a critical yet open mind, we can use them to complement efforts to improve the fundamentals of Malaysian universities. By doing so, we can aim for a higher purpose—not just a higher ranking.
Ir Dr Nahrizul Adib Kadri is an associate professor of biomedical engineering and the Principal of Ibnu Sina Residential College, Universiti Malaya. He may be reached at nahrizuladib@um.edu.my
Leave a comment