Are Sri Lankan universities not ashamed of their poor global rankings?

The absence of international engagement is a fundamental characteristic of the Sri Lankan university system

Incident #1: 

Recently, a friend of mine, whom I had known since my college days in India and who now works in the United States, met me in New Delhi. This reunion happened after several decades, and we spent time exchanging life experiences. During our conversation, I shared details about my academic journey, including my postgraduate achievements, notably my MBA from the University of Colombo. To my surprise, she appeared genuinely impressed and described it as a significant accomplishment, expressing how happy she was for me.

However, I felt compelled to clarify that, based on widely available rankings, the University of Colombo does not compare favourably with many top Indian institutions that offer MBA programs. It soon became evident that she had mistakenly assumed I was referring to the Columbia University in the United States. Despite her best efforts to conceal her reaction, it became clear that the initial enthusiasm had waned. The University of Colombo, being relatively unknown internationally and located in a smaller country, did not hold the same perceived prestige. Consequently, degrees from such institutions tend to carry less weight in certain global contexts.

Incident #2: 

A former student of mine, who is now planning to pursue a PhD at a Canadian university, recently approached me for a recommendation. I was initially surprised by her request, as she graduated at the top of her class with distinction—a strong testament to her academic abilities, which I assumed would suffice to demonstrate her qualifications for advanced studies. In a detailed email, she explained the challenges she faced due to the lack of recognition for degrees from Sri Lankan universities in the professional and academic environment she is currently navigating. She shared the difficulties and moments of embarrassment she experienced during interviews, where her academic background was undervalued.

She acknowledged that my recommendation may not significantly improve her chances but expressed her determination to explore every possible avenue to strengthen her application. This situation, I believe, reflects a broader challenge faced by postgraduate aspirants from Sri Lanka when applying to universities with global reputations. The disparity in perceived academic standards often places them at a disadvantage, regardless of their individual achievements.

With this backdrop, let me delve into the subject. Before that, a disclaimer. I am not a full-time academic; teaching and research are more of a passion that I have pursued extensively, allowing me to establish a modest professional presence in the field. Over the years, multiple universities, both state and non-state, in Sri Lanka have engaged my services in various capacities. I speak with that limited background knowledge. 

It is disheartening to observe the consistently low rankings of Sri Lankan universities on global scales. What troubles me even more is the apparent lack of meaningful effort, either at the institutional or national level, to address and improve these rankings. This concern has driven me to analyse where we currently stand and propose actionable steps to enhance the standing of our universities. While I acknowledge that many have undertaken similar analyses in the past, my goal is to delve a bit deeper than a typical researcher might, exploring the systemic issues and potential solutions with greater detail and a fresh perspective.

Where do we stand?: Sri Lanka’s position in the World Rankings

To make matters not too complicated, and save space, let me consider only three Global University Ranking systems, namely the QS World University Rankings, Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings and AD Scientific Index.

The QS World University Rankings, published annually by Quacquarelli Symonds, serves as a significant global ranking system for higher education institutions. In the latest 2025 edition, only three universities from Sri Lanka are included within the top 1,500: the University of Colombo, University of Peradeniya, and University of Sri Jayewardenepura. Notably, the University of Colombo is the sole Sri Lankan institution to achieve a position within the global top 1,000, while the other two universities rank above 1,200. For a comprehensive understanding, I will present comparative statistics from QS World University Rankings for four developed countries and five developing countries in Asia in Table I.

Then, Times Higher Education World University Rankings too is a highly respected and influential annual ranking of universities worldwide. It assesses over 2,000 institutions using 18 performance indicators across five key areas: teaching (the learning environment), research environment (volume, income, and reputation), research quality (citations, research strength, excellence, and influence), industry engagement (knowledge transfer and innovation), and international outlook (staff, students, and research). The rankings are data-driven, relying on millions of citations, research publications, and academic reputation survey responses.

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings lists six Sri Lankan universities for 2025: University of Colombo (Rank: 1001-1200), University of Peradeniya (1201-1500), Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology, University of Moratuwa, University of Kelaniya and University of Sri Jayewardenepura (all below 1,500). Similar comparisons can be made, and they yield very similar results. 

The AD Scientific Rankings is a specialised ranking system designed to evaluate the scientific performance and productivity of individual researchers, while also providing institutional rankings based on the collective contributions of their affiliated academics. This system utilises data from Google Scholar, including metrics such as the h-index, i10 index, and citation counts, to quantitatively assess research impact. By adopting this data-driven approach, the AD Scientific Rankings aims to measure research performance, identify leading scientists across various disciplines, and facilitate comparisons between institutions based on the scientific output of their researchers.

The AD Scientific Rankings encompass data from 63 Sri Lankan universities and research institutions. Table II presents statistics for the top 10 Sri Lankan universities, highlighting the proportion of academics within each institution who rank among the global top 10%, 30%, and 50% based on research capacity. For example, the University of Colombo has 21 academics classified in the top 10% category. In contrast, institutions such as Sabaragamuwa University, Kotelawala Defence University (KDU), and the Open University of Sri Lanka each have only one academic achieving this distinction. This data underscores the varying levels of research excellence among Sri Lankan universities.

This information underscores significant disparities in research productivity among Sri Lankan institutions. If these were not eye-openers, I do not know what could be. 

Small print: What are the key contributing factors to low rankings?

This title is more a scope for a PhD research study, as it encompasses a wide range of aspects. I will refine it to focus on the essential details necessary for a newspaper article, drawing exclusively from the three sources I have referenced.

The QS World University Rankings assesses key factors such as academic and employer reputation, research impact (measured by citations per faculty), student-to-faculty ratio, internationalisation, employment outcomes, and sustainability. These rankings play a crucial role in influencing student decisions, shaping university reputations, and facilitating institutional benchmarking. Table III presents the scores for the three Sri Lankan universities included in the top 1,500 rankings. It is important to note that the figures provided represent percentage scores for each category, rather than absolute values.

One significant challenge in diagnosing the underlying issues in this data, lies in the lack of access to the complete methodology. While I have utilised the free version, it appears that even for paid subscribers, the full details may not be disclosed. As a result, the only viable approach is to rely on speculation.

To begin with, let us consider the more objective metrics. Regarding the faculty-to-student ratio, which should ideally be a straightforward calculation, it remains perplexing why Sri Lankan universities consistently score so poorly. At first glance, this ratio should simply involve dividing the number of registered students by the number of faculty members—two figures that are typically accessible. The fact that these institutions still receive low scores suggests that additional factors influence the evaluation process. For instance, it is plausible that international universities include visiting faculty who make notable contributions within their own ratios, thereby presenting a more favourable figure. Then, when it comes to international collaboration, Sri Lankan universities are not widely recognised for having substantial numbers of international staff or students. 

A related issue that may contribute to lower scores is the possible unavailability of critical statistical data. If updated and accurate information is not provided, those conducting background research may rely on older, less reliable data. This is an area that warrants closer examination.

The Times Higher Education (THE) Rankings for Sri Lankan universities, as presented in Table IV, appear more favourable. Again, without full access to the underlying methodology, it remains challenging to identify the exact factors contributing to these results. Only a few notable observations can still be made. 

Sri Lankan universities seem to face challenges in demonstrating strong teaching quality to evaluators, which may be partly attributed to the prevalence of local language courses. While the research environment appears relatively weak, other areas such as research quality, industry collaborations, and international outlook seem satisfactory. However, it is important to exercise caution in interpreting individual scores, as they may not fully reflect the broader institutional performance. Ultimately, it is the rankings as a whole, rather than isolated scores, that carry the most significance.

A similar analysis can be conducted for the AD Scientific Rankings of Sri Lankan universities. However, this has been omitted here due to space limitations, as a comparable evaluation has already been presented in Table II.

So, what exactly can we do about it?

A discussion of this nature would be incomplete without presenting thoughtful recommendations. Below are several practical steps that can be undertaken at both the national level and within individual institutions. It is important to note that these suggestions are not exhaustive; rather, they highlight an area that requires significant attention and ongoing research at the institutional level.

First the marketing part. The institutions will not reach high in rankings without international level marketing. Almost all reputed global universities do have dedicated marketing departments, and these teams often play a significant role in maintaining and enhancing the institution’s global reputation. However, it’s important to note that their work is often not just about “marketing” in the conventional sense (e.g., advertising or promoting specific programs), but also about managing a broader set of strategic communications and brand positioning activities. They promote research excellence, faculty achievements, and student success, often through media relations, digital platforms, and targeted advertising. Marketing teams also work closely with admissions to attract top-tier students and faculty, emphasising global outreach and diversity. Additionally, universities actively collect and manage data used in ranking systems, encouraging participation in surveys and highlighting their strengths in areas such as research output, academic reputation, and international collaborations. By leveraging social media, alumni networks, and strategic partnerships, marketing departments help boost the university’s visibility and foster its global standing, all of which are essential for maintaining competitive rankings.

Sri Lankan state universities generally lack dedicated “Marketing Departments” similar to those found in private universities or corporations. In the case of private universities, marketing efforts are primarily focused on increasing student enrolment, as this is essential for their sustainability. Unfortunately, many view initiatives aimed at enhancing global reputation as unnecessary expenditures, failing to recognise the long-term benefits such efforts could yield. To the best of my knowledge, no state nor private fee-levying private university in Sri Lanka has implemented substantial measures—such as those discussed in this article—to enhance their branding. With a proper focus on marketing strategies, these institutions may find it easier to establish global brand awareness compared to their state counterparts.

The absence of international engagement is a fundamental characteristic of the Sri Lankan university system. Addressing this issue necessitates concerted effort and support at the national level. Sri Lankan universities often operate within a constrained mindset, focusing exclusively on local parameters in their educational processes. This perspective may have political roots, as politicians typically prefer to have local educators, who represent their constituencies, instruct local students. This alignment serves their political objectives. Consequently, many Sri Lankan universities, particularly state institutions, are oriented more towards fulfilling these political demands than fostering an environment conducive to global education.

Fee-levying state and private universities in Sri Lanka, on the other hand, operate under a distinct business model that allows them to attract foreign staff and students without the limitations faced by other institutions. However, they encounter significant challenges related to the rigid procedures for obtaining student and work visas. 

The visa process in Sri Lanka is complicated by fluctuating policies, which can lead to confusion and disrupt travel plans. Recent changes to online visa systems, including reversion to previous protocols, highlight this instability. Additionally, the bureaucratic nature of immigration procedures requires extensive documentation and can involve lengthy processing times, posing difficulties for those unfamiliar with the system. Then, both work and student visas have stringent eligibility requirements, necessitating proof of in-demand skills for work visas and enrolment in recognised institutions with adequate financial resources for student visas. The verification of foreign documents can also be a lengthy process, requiring careful attention to detail to prevent delays. To effectively attract foreign faculty and students, Sri Lankan universities must streamline and enhance the flexibility of their visa processes.

Finally, Sri Lankan higher education institutions exhibit a concerning trend of limited emphasis on academic research portfolios. This results in generally low research capacity among Sri Lankan academics. A significant contributing factor is the lack of formal recognition for research capabilities. Metrics such as the H-index and i10-index are not prioritised in academic recruitment or promotion processes. Furthermore, the establishment and maintenance of a Google Scholar profile are not universally mandated, even for senior faculty. Consequently, many professors demonstrate suboptimal research impact indicators. This deficiency necessitates a paradigm shift within Sri Lankan academia. Institutions should implement policies that mandate Google Scholar profiles for all academic staff and integrate research performance metrics into annual evaluations. Failure to address this issue will perpetuate the current low rankings of Sri Lankan universities.

Sri Lankan university academic staff receive a research allowance equivalent to 35% of their base salary. This allowance is reportedly granted automatically, without a rigorous evaluation of individual research performance. This practice contrasts with the potential for quantitative assessment offered by metrics such as the H-index and i10-index. The H-index effectively measures a researcher’s output by correlating publication volume with citation impact, while the i10-index, provided by Google Scholar, quantifies the number of publications achieving a minimum of ten citations. These metrics provide valuable, albeit partial, insights into an academic’s research capacity. While acknowledging the limitations of purely quantitative evaluation, and the need for supplementary qualitative assessments, the current allowance system appears to lack the necessary performance-based criteria.

Achieving desired outcomes in university performance can be facilitated through strategic economic incentives. To enhance university rankings, the University Grants Commission (UGC) should consider implementing performance-based funding models. Specifically, the feasibility of adjusting funding allocations based on demonstrable improvements within a one-year timeframe warrants evaluation. Furthermore, universities should establish internal mechanisms for annually assessing and rewarding faculty research reputation enhancements, directly linking such assessments to compensation and resource allocation. These policy considerations are crucial for addressing the current ranking challenges faced by Sri Lankan universities and preventing further widening of the performance gap.

(The writer is a policy researcher cum academic. The ideas expressed are personal. He can be reached at [email protected].)