Ranking and efficiency of the highest-quality biomedical universities.
Keywords:
medical education, university rankings, world universities, academic financial efficiencyAbstract
Background: Academic rankings may influence student enrolment, faculty recruitment, and funding opportunities, however their methodology is often criticized, primarily because it disregards financial efficiency.
Methods: We analyzed the best 100 biomedical universities in three recognized international rankings (Times Higher Education, Quacquarelli-Symonds, and Shanghai), to investigate the association between expenditure and performance. Times, Q-S and SH overall quality scores, specific sub-scores, operating expenditures, and total students’ number were extracted from official websites. A global quality score was computed as weighted mean of the three scores, and a composite efficiency score was calculated dividing the average annual expenditure per student by the global quality score.
Results: Despite a general alignment, the three rankings showed several discrepancies, highlighting the potential role of a composite quality score, which showed high internal validity and reliability. Sixteen of the 20 top academies were located in USA (n=12) or UK, but the median expense per student of USA universities (183,100 USD) was more than five times larger than the European, Australian (both 28,100 USD), or Canadian (25,000 USD) centers, which showed the best efficiency scores. Indeed, greater funding was significantly associated with a higher global quality score, as well as Times, SH, Q-S scores, and most sub-scores.
Discussion and Conclusions: Considering the steep differences in funding that were detected between top-ranking universities and those just below the top 40, the proposed measure of efficiency may serve as a complementary metric to recognize and reward the academies that are able to maximize resources, still delivering high-quality education.
References
1. Johnes J. University rankings: what do they really show? Scientometrics. 2018;115:585–606. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2666-1.
2. Hamann J, Ringel L. The discursive resilience of university rankings. Higher Educ. 2023;86:845–63. doi:10.1007/s10734-022-00990-x.
3. Marginson S. University rankings and social science. Eur J Educ. 2014;49:45–59. doi:10.1111/ejed.12061.
4. Chu J. Cameras of merit or engines of inequality? College ranking systems and the enrollment of disadvantaged students. Am J Sociol. 2021;126:1307–46. doi:10.1086/714916.
5. Münch R. The colonization of the academic field by rankings: restricting diversity and obstructing the progress of knowledge. In: Erkkilä T, ed. Global university rankings: challenges for European higher education. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2013. p. 196–219.
6. Hazelkorn E. Rankings and the reshaping of higher education - the battle for world-class excellence. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.
7. Baltaru RD, Manac RD, Ivan MD. Do rankings affect universities’ financial sustainability? – financial vulnerability to rankings and elite status as a positional good. Stud Higher Educ. 2022;47:2323–35. doi:10.1080/03075079.2022.2061447.
8. Benito M, Gil P, Romera R. Funding, is it key for standing out in the university rankings? Scientometrics. 2019;121:771–92. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03202-z.
9. McClure KR, Titus MA. Spending up the ranks? The relationship between striving for prestige and administrative expenditures at U.S. public research universities. J Higher Educ. 2018;89:961–87. doi:10.1080/00221546.2018.1449079.
10. National Center for Education Statistics. Core expenses for degree-granting postsecondary institutions [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2022. Available from: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=75. Accessed August 19, 2025.
11. Marconi G, Ritzen J. Determinants of international university rankings scores. Appl Econ. 2015;47:6211–27. doi:10.1080/00036846.2015.1068921.
12. Di Leo S, Avenali A, Daraio C, Wolszczak-Derlacz J. Climbing university rankings under resources constraints: a combined approach integrating DEA and directed Louvain community detection. Ann Oper Res. 2025;351:1377–402. doi:10.1007/s10479-024-06219-7.
13. Times Higher Education. World university rankings 2024 [Internet]. 2025. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings. Accessed August 19, 2025.
14. QS World University Rankings. Quacquarelli Symonds world university rankings 2024 [Internet]. 2025. Available from: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-subject-rankings/medicine. Accessed August 19, 2025.
15. ShanghaiRanking. Academic ranking of world universities - ARWU (Shanghai ranking) 2024 [Internet]. 2025. Available from: https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2024. Accessed August 19, 2025.
16. Bekhradnia B. International university rankings: for good or ill? Oxford; 2016. Available from: https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Hepi_International-university-rankings-For-good-or-for-ill-REPORT-89-10_12_16_Screen.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2025.
17. Hazelkorn E, Gibson A. Global science, national research, and the question of university rankings. Palgrave Commun. 2017;3:21. doi:10.1057/s41599-017-0011-6.
18. Duan SX. Measuring university efficiency: an application of data envelopment analysis and strategic group analysis to Australian universities. Benchmarking. 2019;26:1161–73. doi:10.1108/bij-10-2017-0274.
19. Abramo G, D'Angelo CA. Assessing technical and cost efficiency of research activities: a case study of the Italian university system. Res Eval. 2009;18:61–70. doi:10.3152/095820209x408869.
20. Lepori B, Geuna A, Mira A. Scientific output scales with resources. A comparison of US and European universities. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0223415. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0223415.
21. Szluka P, Csajbók E, Győrffy B. Relationship between bibliometric indicators and university ranking positions. Sci Rep. 2023;13:14193. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-35306-1.
22. World Bank Group. Data – GNI per capita, PPP (current international $), year 2022 [Internet]. Washington, DC; 2025. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD?end=2022&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=1990. Accessed August 19, 2025.
23. Nakamura S, Harati R, Lall SV, Dikhanov YM, Hamadeh N, Oliver WV, et al. Comparing costs of living across world cities. World Bank Econ Rev. 2020;34(Suppl 1):S79–S88. doi:10.1093/wber/lhz037.
24. Higher Education Strategy Associates. 2022 world higher education: institutions, students, and funding [Internet]. Toronto; 2022. Available from: https://higheredstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/HESA_World-Higher-Education-2022_Main-Report-2.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2025.
25. European University Association. Key considerations for the use of rankings by higher education institutions [Internet]. Geneva; 2023. Available from: https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/key%20considerations%20for%20the%20use%20of%20rankings%20by%20heis.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Annalisa Rosso, Cecilia Acuti Martellucci, Giovanni Cioni, Marco Tiseo, Giovanna Letizia Calò, Matteo Fiore, Enrico Zauli, Maria Elena Flacco, Lamberto Manzoli (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Transfer of Copyright and Permission to Reproduce Parts of Published Papers.
Authors retain the copyright for their published work. No formal permission will be required to reproduce parts (tables or illustrations) of published papers, provided the source is quoted appropriately and reproduction has no commercial intent. Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.