Our Approach

The HE Higher Education Ranking Approach
(A principled, operations-oriented framework for fair, useful, and comparable improvement)
Published independently as an American ranking system.
HE Higher Education Ranking is published independently to safeguard methodological integrity and public trust. The initiative is legally registered in
Dover (Kent County), Delaware, USA
as
HE Higher Education Ranking LLC
,
File Number 10157263
. This independence matters: it ensures that what we value—and therefore what we measure—remains aligned with the public interest and the day-to-day realities of universities rather than sponsorships, advertising, or short-term trends.
Why an “approach” at all?
Rankings shape behaviour. If a ranking emphasizes only reputation or a narrow set of outputs, institutions will rationally direct disproportionate attention to those areas—even when other essential systems (equity, student support, academic integrity, QA, safety, data governance, or community impact) need investment. Our approach answers this distortion by
measuring the operation of universities holistically
, using
25 criteria
and
136 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
that are specific, auditable, and comparable. The goal is simple:
what is essential to the mission of higher education must be visible, measurable, and improvable
.
First principles: real, fair, equitable, and impartial
Our approach is grounded in four principles that guide how we design indicators, collect evidence, and calculate results:
Real
— We measure
what institutions actually do
: policies in force, services delivered, outputs produced, outcomes achieved. KPIs are concrete and evidence-based, not aspirational slogans.
Fair
— We normalize where appropriate (per student, per faculty, etc.) so differences in scale or legacy wealth do not swamp results. Outliers are reviewed; no single metric can dominate.
Equitable
— Indicators consider
access, affordability, inclusion, and support
so that mission-critical services for under-represented learners are visible and valued.
Impartial
— The methodology is published; weights are disclosed; processes are separated from communications and partnerships to avoid conflicts of interest.
Theory of change: measure → diagnose → improve → re-measure
HE’s approach is not a scoreboard for prestige; it is a
management tool
for improvement:
Measure.
Institutions report against the 136 KPIs within 25 criteria.
Diagnose.
Results reveal strengths, gaps, and outliers in a structured way.
Improve.
Each participating institution receives a confidential report with
actionable guidance
—quick wins and multi-year priorities.
Re-measure.
Annual cycles encourage steady, verifiable progress rather than one-off campaigns.
This loop converts ranking from an external judgment into an internal learning process.
What we prioritize—and why
Our approach is to enhance
access to higher education
,
support internationalization and research
,
improve teaching and learning
,
bridge the gap with the labour market
, and
strengthen institutional transparency and academic freedom
. Below is what that means in practice and why it is logically necessary.
1) Access and equity
Access
is not merely enrolment; it is the presence of
practical pathways
(admissions policies, financial aid, recognition of prior learning),
support services
(advising, mental health, disability services), and
completion structures
(progress monitoring, early alerts). KPIs examine both
existence
(Is the policy there?),
quality
(Is it well-designed?), and
reach
(Who actually benefits?). Logic: no measure of excellence is credible if it ignores who can enter, persist, and succeed.
2) Internationalization that is responsible and reciprocal
We look at
multilingual public information
,
mobility that serves academic goals
,
mutually beneficial partnerships
, and
systems for supporting international students and staff
. Logic: internationalization is not an airport count; it is the capacity to
teach and collaborate across borders
with quality, ethics, and care.
3) Research ecosystems, not just tallies
Counting outputs alone misses the
infrastructure of good research
: integrity policies, research training, data stewardship, ethics review, open science practices, and pathways for
knowledge transfer
. Logic: robust ecosystems produce sustainable outcomes; weak systems inflate numbers but erode trust.
4) Teaching and learning as an institutional system
Teaching quality is not a single classroom event. We evaluate
curriculum governance
,
assessment fairness
,
faculty development
,
learning analytics use
,
digital learning capacity
,
student voice
, and
work-integrated learning
. Logic: students experience a system. If the system is coherent, students learn; if not, individual excellence is diluted by structural gaps.
5) Labour-market alignment and employability
We consider
employer engagement
,
skills frameworks
,
career services
,
internships/placements
, and
graduate outcomes tracking
. Logic: universities are not training centers—but ignoring employability creates a harmful gap between learning and livelihoods. Mature systems enable graduates to
transition and adapt
, not just land a first job.
6) Transparency and academic freedom
We assess
public reporting
,
data openness
,
grievance and whistleblowing mechanisms
,
due-process protections
, and
academic freedom policies
. Logic: without transparency and the liberty to question, neither research nor teaching can thrive; opaque systems breed risk and distrust.
7) Quality assurance, accreditation, and management systems
We include indicators aligned with
quality assurance
and
education organization management systems
(e.g.,
EOMS/ISO 21001
), recognizing that internal QA and external accreditation function
alongside
ranking. Logic: QA is the engine of continuous improvement; ranking should reinforce—not replace—sound QA.
8) Social, cultural, and scientific impact
We evaluate
community engagement
,
cultural initiatives
,
public scholarship
, and
evidence of benefit
beyond campus. Logic: universities are
of
society, not apart from it; a high-functioning institution contributes to civic life and knowledge diffusion.
How we encode priorities: 25 criteria and 136 KPIs
To keep breadth without losing clarity, we organize our approach into
25 criteria
, each with
clearly weighted
KPIs. Three design choices preserve fairness and usefulness:
Evidence tiers.
Many KPIs score across tiers:
existence → quality → implementation → reach
. This recognizes progress and avoids all-or-nothing treatment.
Bounded influence.
Weights ensure that no single KPI can distort the overall result.
Normalization.
Where scale matters, we normalize (e.g., per student) so small or teaching-focused institutions are not penalized for size.
Eliminating discrimination and promoting social justice
Our approach explicitly targets the
removal of structural barriers
within higher education. KPIs test whether institutions have
anti-discrimination policies
,
inclusive pedagogy and assessment
,
reasonable accommodations
,
gender equity measures
,
affordability supports
, and
safe-campus systems
. Logic: a system that excludes is a system that fails its mission. Real improvement demands that universities be
safe, fair, and inclusive
for all learners and staff.
Data credibility and impartial scoring
Credibility comes from
verifiable evidence
and
clear scoring rules
. We require traceable documentation and conduct outlier and consistency checks. The methodology is
public
, and results are calculated
independently
of communications or partnership activities. Logic: impartiality is not a belief; it is a procedure—one that can be audited and explained.
Bridging strategy and operations
A recurring problem in higher education is the gap between
strategic plans
and
operational routines
. Our approach closes this gap by rewarding institutions that
translate strategy into systems
: resourcing plans, assigning responsibility, monitoring indicators, and reporting progress. Logic: plans do not teach students, advise them, support research, or keep campuses safe—
systems do
.
Why our approach is pro-improvement, not anti-marketing
We do not oppose universities celebrating their achievements; we oppose
substituting
celebration for
substance
. In our model, the only reliable path to a stronger result is
genuine operational progress
—the kind that students and staff can feel. If institutions use HE for promotion, the signal is credible precisely because the underlying KPIs are
real, fair, equitable, and impartial
.
Independence and public value
By publishing independently and keeping the ranking
free to access
, we align our incentives with the public good. Our legal registration in
Dover (Kent County), Delaware, USA
as
HE Higher Education Ranking LLC
,
File Number 10157263
, underscores accountability. Logic: the sector needs rankings that are
answerable to evidence and the public
, not to buyers or sponsors.
In one line: what our approach stands for
Measure what truly matters in how universities operate;
treat institutions fairly
;
value inclusion and freedom
; and convert measurement into
actionable improvement
year after year.
HE Higher Education Ranking
—independently published, American-registered, and purpose-built to improve higher education—applies a transparent framework of
25 criteria
and
136 KPIs
to evaluate institutional operation. By focusing on access, internationalization, scientific research, teaching quality, societal contribution, labour-market alignment, transparency, academic freedom, social justice, and the elimination of discrimination, our approach ensures that progress in the ranking reflects
real progress in the university.
Need Assistance?
kayyali@heranking.com
+44 7400 186 393
Mon-Fri: 9 AM – 6 PM
Saturday: 9 AM – 4 PM