Opinion | Hong Kong’s focus on rankings distorts universities’ true mission

“Hong Kong is the only city in the world with five universities ranked among the global top 100.” This talking point has become one of the Hong Kong government’s favourite slogans. It has appeared in government press releases and official speeches, including Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu’s policy address last year.
Though pleasing to the ear, this distorts our education priorities. Hong Kong is also an outlier in attaching such political significance to university rankings.
Once the Hong Kong government started doing this, no university president in Hong Kong could afford the political risk of seeing their institution drop out of the world’s top 100. The consequence extends far beyond a single university: Hong Kong as a whole could be downgraded from a city with five world-leading institutions to only four, diminishing a much-touted point of pride.
Similarly, any university president who succeeds in helping to push this number from five to six would set a new high for Hong Kong and secure themselves a place in local education history.
Unsurprisingly, rankings have become an obsession across the sector. Institutional policies, research directions and resource allocation are shaped by ranking considerations. Activities that help rankings receive top priority; those that do not, no matter how meaningful they are, have to give way.
The problem is not university rankings themselves. Rankings are still a useful tool. The problem begins when that tool becomes universities’ primary objective. The result is enduring and profound.

Earlier this month, the Centre for World University Rankings (CWUR) released its latest global league table. The results were striking: not one of Hong Kong’s eight publicly funded universities made this top 100 list. The highest-ranking local institution, the University of Hong Kong, placed 155th.
Unlike some ranking systems, CWUR does not use self-reported ranking data from universities or subjective reputational surveys. Its methodology is based entirely on publicly available data. Under CWUR methodology, Hong Kong does not have five universities in the top 100. It has none.
Faced with such a dramatic discrepancy, the Hong Kong government maintained a dignified silence. Universities saw no need to respond. The media showed little interest. Alumni, students and parents remain indifferent.
That is exactly how it should be. Rankings are a measurement tool, not a policy objective. Different methodologies produce different results. A university does not become world-class one year and mediocre the next simply because a ranking formula has changed.
Most ranking systems place significant weight on research publications, citation counts and other easily quantifiable indicators. Universities therefore devote enormous energy to improving those numbers.

Publishing research findings is essential, but when rankings become the objective, a subtle shift occurs. The question is no longer whether research advances knowledge and contributes to progress. It becomes whether research can be published quickly and cited frequently. Research agendas gradually adapt to ranking incentives.
Over time, Hong Kong has developed a peculiar imbalance: a massive amount of research papers but few innovation and technology-driven enterprises. The contrast with our neighbours is stark.
In Taiwan and Shenzhen, hi-tech industry accounts for more than one-third of GDP. For Hong Kong, it is 1 per cent, according to the Census and Statistics Department. Last year, Secretary for Innovation, Technology and Industry Sun Dong broadened the definition to include activities that were previously not counted, lifting the figure to 2.6 per cent.
These uncomfortable numbers raise an obvious question: why?
The answer is undoubtedly complex. High-end manufacturing capacity, supply chains, market size and capital all matter, but these hardware shortcomings are increasingly surmountable, particularly as Hong Kong integrates its development with national development. One of the world’s largest high-end manufacturing ecosystems lies just across the Shenzhen River.

Hong Kong universities do not lack talent. They are home to world-class researchers and outstanding students. Neither does Hong Kong lack opportunities. The Northern Metropolis, San Tin Technopole and growing national support for Hong Kong’s development as an international innovation and technology centre have created conditions that did not exist before.
The only missing part is for our universities to stop chasing rankings and start chasing real outcomes. However, the first reform required is not within the universities themselves. It is within the government’s mindset.
Last week, QS World University Rankings released its latest league table and again placed five Hong Kong universities among the top 100. Again, the government issued a statement declaring that the results “bear testimony again to the significant progress made by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government”.
Universities tend to be stable institutions. Government funding is predictable. Tenured faculty often remain for decades. The same cohort of students stay for three years. Meanwhile, the rankings of such remarkable institutions go up and down like a yo-yo.
A case in point: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology was ranked 27th in 2021, it plunged to 60th three years later, then bounced back in two years. The Chinese University of Hong Kong shot up by 14 places in a single year, from 32nd last year to 18th this year. It is hard to believe that such remarkably stable institutions can improve or deteriorate so dramatically in such short periods.
The day our government stops treating university rankings as the city’s strategic achievement will be the day our universities stop chasing rankings as their strategic objective and fully return to their true mission of nurturing talent, creating knowledge and contributing to society.