The elusive measurement of teaching quality in rankings

Why teaching quality resists measurement

Teaching is what most people think universities are for, yet it is the dimension of university performance that rankings measure least effectively. The reasons are inherent to the nature of teaching. Good teaching is relational, context-dependent, and long-term in its effects. It cannot be reduced to a single number or a survey score without losing essential information. A ranking that attempts to capture teaching quality with a handful of indicators is necessarily producing a thin, incomplete representation.

The proxies that rankings use for teaching quality—student-to-staff ratios, reputation surveys, institutional income, graduation rates—each capture a piece of the puzzle but miss the core. The student-to-staff ratio, as discussed in an earlier article, is a structural input measure that says little about teaching practice. Reputation surveys ask academics to rate institutions, but academics are not students and their perceptions of teaching quality are based on reputation, not experience. Institutional income may reflect resources available for teaching but says nothing about how those resources are used.

Student satisfaction surveys: promise and pitfalls

Student satisfaction surveys, such as the National Student Survey in the United Kingdom or the National Survey of Student Engagement in the United States, provide the most direct measure of student experience. These surveys ask students about their courses, their interactions with faculty, the quality of feedback, and their overall satisfaction. When well-designed and carefully administered, they can provide valuable insights into teaching quality from the student perspective.

However, student satisfaction surveys have well-documented limitations. Satisfaction is influenced by factors beyond teaching quality, including grade expectations, workload, campus facilities, and social life. Students who receive higher grades tend to report higher satisfaction, regardless of how much they actually learned. Cultural differences in how students evaluate their experiences make cross-national comparisons problematic. A satisfaction score from a country where students are culturally inclined to give positive responses cannot be directly compared to a score from a country where criticism is more normative.

Learning outcomes and value-added measures

Some assessment systems attempt to measure teaching quality by measuring what students actually learn. Standardized tests of generic skills such as critical thinking, written communication, and quantitative reasoning can be administered to students at entry and at graduation, with the difference representing the value added by the institution. This approach, used by initiatives such as the Collegiate Learning Assessment in the United States, is conceptually attractive but practically challenging.

The challenges include the difficulty of designing tests that are valid across diverse disciplines and institutional types, the cost and logistics of large-scale testing, the risk of teaching to the test, and the philosophical question of whether the most important outcomes of higher education are measurable by standardized instruments at all. At present, no major global ranking incorporates direct measures of learning outcomes. The field is developing, but the holy grail of a valid, scalable, cross-nationally comparable measure of teaching quality remains elusive.

What students can do to assess teaching quality

Given the limitations of ranking indicators for teaching quality, students must do their own investigation. Start by reading course syllabi and module descriptions. Are the learning objectives clear and ambitious? Do the assessment methods seem appropriate? Look for information on class sizes, not just the institution-wide average. Visit departmental websites and look for teaching awards, innovative pedagogy, or faculty who are recognized for their teaching. These signals are more granular and often more informative than ranking indicators.

If possible, attend virtual open days, watch recorded lectures, and read student reviews on independent platforms. Contact current students or recent alumni in your intended program and ask specific questions about the teaching: How accessible are faculty outside of class? How useful is the feedback on assignments? Do courses feel intellectually challenging? These qualitative insights, while subjective, often capture the reality of teaching quality better than any ranking indicator. Use rankings to build a shortlist, but let your own investigation determine which institution offers the teaching environment you need.

In the absence of perfect metrics, students must become active investigators of teaching quality. Read course syllabi with a critical eye. Are the learning objectives specific and ambitious? Do the assessments require genuine intellectual engagement, or are they designed for easy grading? Look for evidence that faculty are recognized for teaching, not just research—teaching awards, innovative course designs, or public commitments to pedagogical development. These signals, gathered from departmental websites and course catalogues, often reveal more about the teaching culture than any number in a ranking table.