League tables

This page presents a high level overview of higher education rankings/league tables.

University rankings and league tables

National/regional and world University rankings have become part of the annual higher education calendar. Although the merits of many aspects of their methodology can be debated, it is clear that rankings can have a significant impact on the reputation and perceived standing of institutions. 

World League Tables

World league tables from 2017 to 2026 showing University of Edinburgh's institutional position in the main World rankings
League table 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
QS 35 34 27 22 15 16 20 20 18 =23
Times Higher Education TBC 29 29 30 29 30 30 30 29 27
Shanghai Ranking TBC 37 40 38 35 38 42 30 32 32

UK League Tables

UK league tables from 2017 to 2026 showing University of Edinburgh's institutional position in the main UK rankings
League table 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
Complete University Guide 19 18 15 12 12 12 15 15 23 =23
Guardian TBC 13 15 14 12 12 13 25 28 =30
Times TBC 225 17 13 10 13 17 25 28 24
Daily Mail TBC 20 29 19 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Notes to the tables

  • In our tables above we refer to the calendar year in which the edition was published. Rankings editions online, apart from the Shanghai ranking, are labelled with the following year, as their key audience is prospective applicants who are considering their options. 
  • Daily Mail started publishing UK rankings in 2023. 

Discussion

  • UK rankings traditionally comprise a range of different quantitative measures of input, process and output including: entry standards, student satisfaction, student:staff ratio, academic services/facilities expenditure per student, research quality, proportion of 1sts/2:1s, completion rates, and student destinations.
  • To construct World rankings, however, compilers have to use measures that translate as reliably as possible across different countries/regions - i.e. for which comparable data, which are not inextricably linked to national prosperity or other local/regional issues, can be found. For this reason, the measures used in the World University rankings are quite different to those used for UK rankings and may include prizewinner affiliations, research bibliometrics, student:faculty ratio, peer review responses, and percentage international students/staff.
  • Ranking methodologies have always been open to criticism due to the inherent arbitrary nature of weighting scores from different measures and then summing these to give an overall measure of ‘quality’. Some measures are also more controversial and open to bias (e.g. by institution size/subject profile/location etc) than others.
  • Finally, comparing one institution’s overall score (and hence rank position) against that of another institution can produce statistical reliability issues: analysis of ranking methodologies has shown that small changes in methodology, source data, or indicator weighting can result in large changes in an institution’s relative position within a ranking.  Compilers mitigate some of these issues by, for example, weighting data by subject mix, and by employing z-score methodology to statistically spread the data for individual measures.

Reference

Contact 

Jim Galbraith - Head of Strategic Data Insight and Analysis

Jim.Galbraith@ed.ac.uk