University rankings provide concise snapshots of an institution's performance; at least according to the way performance is defined by the methodologies underpinning these rankings. In this context, rankings can be valuable gateways through which to encourage potential students and partners to engage with the institution.
Furthermore, in some cases rankings provide or limit access to government funding and other programs. Thus, while some may treat rankings with skepticism, there are pragmatic reasons for developing strategies to enhance the university's positions in world ranking systems.
Moreover, to the extent that ranking systems capture the features of high-quality academic institutions, taking efforts to improve our institutional rank should translate into improved experiences for our students, researchers, and partners. However, the kinds of changes that lead to meaningful improvements in institutional rankings take a long time to occur.
As such, improving our rankings will be a project over a timescale consistent with that which is the focus of the Bicentennial Vision.
Figure 5.1 shows how Queen鈥檚 has performed in the QS, (Times Higher Education) THE, and Shanghai world university rankings systems over the last decade. These values demonstrate that Queen鈥檚 is generally ranked somewhere between 200 and 300 in different world university rankings.
Becoming consistently ranked in the top 200 or better would enhance Queen鈥檚 global reputation, which would aid in recruiting students and faculty, and provide access to international programs that are limited by institutional rank.
The following sections consider the QS rankings in depth because we have access to data required to conduct such an analysis.

Year | QS | THE | Shanghai |
---|---|---|---|
2015 | 187 | 251 | 201 |
2016 | 206 | 251 | 201 |
2017 | 223 | 201 | 201 |
2018 | 224 | 251 | 201 |
2019 | 239 | 251 | 301 |
2020 | 239 | 251 | 201 |
2021 | 246 | 251 | 201 |
2022 | 240 | 251 | 201 |
2023 | 246 | 251 | 201 |
2024 | 209 | 251 | 201 |
2025 | 193 | 301 |
QS ranking categories
The QS ranking system provides specific values for the ranked position for Queen鈥檚 and all other U15 institutions. In addition, data needed to examine the metrics that underpin many of the QS metrics are accessible from the QS institutional websites and through Scival. As such, the following sections will use 2025 QS data to examine different QS metrics to provide insight into the opportunities that exist for Queen鈥檚 to improve its ranking.
The QS rankings are based on a combination of scores in the following categories: academic reputation (30%), employer reputation (15%), student-faculty ratio (10%), citations per faculty (20%), international faculty ratio (5%), international student ratio (5%), international research network (5%), employment outcomes (5%), and sustainability (5%). Data available on the QS institutional websites and through Scival permit analyses of how the student-faculty ratio, citations per faculty, international faculty ratio, international student ratio, international research network are affected by factors like the distribution of faculty and students in the institution. These metrics are examined in what follows. Rankings and scores are available for the other metrics, but data permitting an analysis relating these scores are not available for a detailed analysis.
It is noted that in some of the cases below, the QS and Scival data lead to anomalous results, e.g., institutions with similar values of a metric being ranked very differently, which may be due to university-requested changes to the data used in the QS rankings that are not updated on the QS institutional websites. Despite these anomalous cases, the data provide trends that can provide insights into how changes to the institution may affect the university鈥檚 global ranking, which may help inform the development of the Bicentennial Vision.
Student-Faculty Ratio
The QS score in the student-faculty ratio category is plotted against this ratio in Figure 5.2 for all U15 institutions, with Queen鈥檚 indicated by the red symbol.
The data show that Queen鈥檚 has the third highest student-faculty ratio across U15 schools. Assuming there is no intention to reduce the size of the student body, improving this ratio, and hence the QS score in this section, would require increasing faculty numbers at a higher rate than the growth in student numbers.
For context regarding the necessary changes in faculty numbers, the data indicate that if student numbers did not increase at Queen鈥檚, the institution would have to hire approximately 100 new faculty to achieve the same student-faculty ratio as the U15 institution with the next highest value for this ratio. Doing this would translate into an improvement of 0.1 points in the total QS score, which would improve Queen鈥檚 position in the QS rankings by 1.

University | Students per faculty | QS Score |
---|---|---|
Alberta | 9.5 | 39.10 |
Calgary | 12.5 | 18.10 |
Dalhousie | 14.6 | 12.90 |
Laval | 11.0 | 26.00 |
Manitoba | 10.8 | 29.60 |
McGill | 7.8 | 62.30 |
McMaster | 9.8 | 63.80 |
Montreal | 7.0 | 76.00 |
Ottawa | 23.7 | 3.50 |
Queen's | 19.3 | 5.40 |
Saskatchewan | 12.4 | 18.20 |
Toronto | 9.8 | 44.90 |
UBC | 12.5 | 34.50 |
Waterloo | 17.9 | 6.50 |
Western | 24.5 | 3.30 |
International Student Ratio
The QS score in the international student ratio category is plotted against this ratio in Figure 5.3 for all U15 institutions, with Queen鈥檚 indicated by the red symbol.
The data show that Queen鈥檚 is lowest in this ratio amongst all U15 institutions. For context related to improving this score, increasing from Queen鈥檚 current value for this ratio (0.16) to that of the U15 school with the next lowest value (0.20) would improve Queen鈥檚 total QS score by 0.75 points, which would translate into an improvement of 6 places in the QS ranking.
Achieving this increase in this ratio would require increasing Queen鈥檚 total international student population (undergraduate plus graduate) by approximately 1,200 students while keeping the total enrolment number fixed. Such an increase is likely infeasible given recent limits on international enrolment but could form a longer-term goal.

University | International Student Ratio | QS Score |
---|---|---|
Alberta | 0.27 | 71.00 |
Calgary | 0.26 | 66.20 |
Dalhousie | 0.28 | 74.60 |
Laval | 0.20 | 41.60 |
Manitoba | 0.23 | 43.20 |
McGill | 0.34 | 89.60 |
McMaster | 0.23 | 56.70 |
Montreal | 0.23 | 54.10 |
Ottawa | 0.29 | 77.80 |
Queen's | 0.16 | 26.60 |
Saskatchewan | 0.22 | 49.50 |
Toronto | 0.39 | 96.10 |
UBC | 0.29 | 72.70 |
Waterloo | 0.27 | 71.30 |
Western | 0.22 | 49.50 |
International Faculty Ratio
The QS score in the international faculty ratio category is plotted against this rate in Figure 5.4 for all U15 institutions, with Queen鈥檚 indicated by the red symbol.
The data indicate that Queen鈥檚 has the second-lowest value for this ratio across the U15. For context with respect to improving this score, if Queen鈥檚 increased this ratio (0.27) to that of the U15 institution with the next highest ratio (0.29), it would increase its overall QS score by 0.3 points, which translates into an improvement of 2 positions in the QS rank.
Achieving this increase in the international faculty ratio would require increasing the number of international faculty by about 30 members while keeping the total faculty number constant.

University | International Faculty Percentage | QS Score |
---|---|---|
Dalhousie | 51.00 | 99.9 |
Western | 49.00 | 99.8 |
Alberta | 44.00 | 98.3 |
Toronto | 42.00 | 96.9 |
UBC | 40.00 | 95.5 |
Ottawa | 38.00 | 91.7 |
McMaster | 35.00 | 96.2 |
Montreal | 34.00 | 87.6 |
McGill | 32.00 | 83.7 |
Calgary | 30.00 | 77.7 |
Saskatchewan | 30.00 | 77.3 |
Waterloo | 29.00 | 75.8 |
Queen's | 27.00 | 69.2 |
Laval | 23.00 | 55.8 |
Citations per faculty
The QS score for citations per faculty is obtained by counting the total number of citations the institution received in the previous six years, eliminating self-citations, applying a weighting factor to account for differences in publication and citation rates in different fields, and then dividing the number of field-weighted citations by the number of faculty.
The QS scores for field-weighted citations per faculty are plotted against the number of field-weighted citations per faculty in Figure 5.5 for all U15 institutions, with Queen鈥檚 indicated by the red symbol. These data illustrate that Queen鈥檚 is near the middle of the U15 for this metric.

University | Field-weighted citations/faculty member | QS Score |
---|---|---|
Western | 214.83 | 93.40 |
Ottawa | 192.01 | 81.30 |
Waterloo | 186.50 | 78.90 |
Dalhousie | 161.47 | 53.50 |
Alberta | 152.68 | 61.30 |
McGill | 147.00 | 57.90 |
UBC | 146.68 | 57.70 |
Saskatchewan | 145.58 | 57.00 |
Toronto | 135.42 | 50.80 |
Queen's | 121.99 | 42.60 |
Calgary | 118.13 | 40.30 |
McMaster | 115.32 | 35.60 |
Laval | 88.12 | 23.80 |
Montreal | 78.35 | 19.30 |
Manitoba | 66.26 | 12.00 |
The decomposition of citations by field permits an analysis of the extent to which researchers in different fields contribute to the QS score for this metric. The Queen鈥檚 and median U15 values of this metric in each of the academic fields included in the QS calculation are presented in Figure 5.6. Note that these citation numbers are field-weighted to achieve consistency across these fields on a global scale.
Both data sets indicate that health researchers generally have the highest number of citations per faculty, followed by engineering, science, arts and humanities, and then the social sciences. This trend is also generally true across all U15 institutions.
A comparison of the Queen鈥檚 values with the U15 median shows that Queen鈥檚 health science researchers have a citation rate that is 144% of the U15 median, while the arts and humanities, engineering, science and social science areas exhibit citation rates that are 41%, 67%, 76%, and 68% of the U15 median, respectively. This observation suggests that an increase in the number of health researchers at Queen鈥檚 could improve the institution鈥檚 score in this category. For example, if Queen鈥檚 faculty were distributed according to the U15 median in Figure 2.1, the institution鈥檚 total QS score would improve by 10.6 points, which translates into an improvement of 79 places in the QS rank and would rank Queen鈥檚 6th amount U15 institutions in the QS rankings.
Of course, this comparison assumes that all faculty added or removed from an area contributed the average amount to that area and an extrapolation based on such a significant change in faculty distribution should not be taken as a predication a prediction that would be realized exactly if that change in faculty distribution occurred. Nonetheless, the data suggest that Queen鈥檚 could substantially improve its ranking by increasing the proportion of faculty in health, which is already substantially lower than the U15 median, and by reducing the proportion of arts and humanities faculty, which is already substantially higher than the U15 median.

Academic Area | Queen's | U15 Median excl. Queen's |
---|---|---|
Arts & Humanities | 97.9 | 236.8 |
Engineering | 284.4 | 421.8 |
Health | 979.1 | 682.0 |
Science | 213.4 | 280.2 |
Social Science | 75.1 | 110.6 |
International Research Network
The QS international research network index is a measure of the richness of an institution鈥檚 international partners and is underpinned by a metric calculated as S = L/ln(P), where S is the QS score, P is the distinct number of international partners included on publications, and L is the number of countries represented by those partners. For each institution, the value of S is calculated separately for each of the five academic areas considered in QS system using field-weighting factors, and the institutional index is obtained by averaging the individual scores for these five areas.
The QS scores for the international research network are plotted against the value of this metric in Figure 5.7 for all U15 institutions, with Queen鈥檚 indicated by the red symbols. The data indicate that Queen鈥檚 is ranked last in this category amongst U15 institutions, but it should be noted that all U15 institutions exhibit high scores (above 70 out of a maximum of 100) and thus generally perform well in this category.

University | International Research Network Index | QS Score |
---|---|---|
Alberta | 70.95 | 96.0 |
Calgary | 58.61 | 85.2 |
Dalhousie | 53.47 | 77.4 |
Laval | 55.15 | 80.6 |
Manitoba | 51.06 | 73.1 |
McGill | 67.78 | 94.2 |
McMaster | 56.72 | 82.6 |
Montreal | 58.33 | 84.9 |
Ottawa | 66.13 | 93.0 |
Queen's | 50.09 | 71.2 |
Saskatchewan | 56.54 | 82.3 |
Toronto | 75.00 | 97.7 |
UBC | 71.31 | 96.2 |
Waterloo | 58.10 | 84.6 |
Western | 56.02 | 81.5 |
The use of field-weighted quantities in the calculation of the international research network index permits a comparison of how different fields contribute to this index. The Queen鈥檚 and median U15 values of this metric in each of the academic fields included in the QS calculation are presented in Figure 5.8.
The data show that Queen鈥檚 reaches 99%, 93%, 86%, 82%, and 51% of the U15 median values for the engineering, health, science, social science, and arts and humanities fields, respectively. These results indicate that a change in faculty distribution could improve this score. Once again, consider the case where the faculty were distributed according to the U15 median values in Figure 2.1.
If this situation was achieved, once again assuming all faculty added or removed from areas contributed the average amount to this index in those areas, Queen鈥檚 would improve its total QS score by 0.9 points, which translates into an improvement of 8 positions in the QS rank.

Academic Area | Queen's | U15 Median excl. Queen's |
---|---|---|
Arts & Humanities | 19.6 | 38.7 |
Engineering | 65.5 | 65.9 |
Health | 64.9 | 69.7 |
Science | 53.9 | 62.5 |
Social Science | 46.7 | 57.2 |
Information / data for members of the Queen鈥檚 community as they consider their input on the development of the Bicentennial Vision.
- Section 1: Institutional strategies and frameworks
- Section 2: People data
- Section 3: Institutional funding data
- Section 4: Research data
- Section 5: Rankings (this page)