The 100 most international universities in the world 2015

Rank (2015)	Rank (2014)	Institution	International outlook
=100	=94	University of Nottingham	70.6
=100	93	The University of Newcastle	70.6
=98	N/A	Rice University	70.8
=98	N/A	University College Cork	70.8
97	98	University of Toronto	71.2
96	N/A	City University of Hong Kong	71.3
95	N/A	Dalhousie University	71.6
94	=99	National University of Ireland, Galway	71.7
=92	73	University of Copenhagen	71.8
=92	81	Deakin University	71.8
=90	N/A	Medical University of Vienna	73.1
=90	N/A	Bangor University	73.1
=88	N/A	University of Macau	73.3
=88	82	University of Portsmouth	73.3
87	96	University of Alberta	73.4
86	72	Newcastle University	73.8
85	88	University of Sheffield	74.8
84	52	University of Hertfordshire	74.9
=82	80	University of York	75.0
=82	=91	University of Reading	75.0
81	=86	University of Birmingham	75.8
80	84	Vienna University of Technology	75.9
79	=66	University of Bath	76.1
78	85	University of East Anglia	76.5
77	=75	University of Bristol	76.6
=75	74	University of Montreal	76.7
=75	68	University of Cape Town	76.7
74	69	Hong Kong University of Science and Technology	77.8
73	78	Delft University of Technology	77.9
72	=60	Wageningen University and Research Center	78.7
71	79	University of Glasgow	78.8

Rank (2015)	Rank (2014)	Institution	International outlook
70	64	McGill University	79.0
69	=62	University of Adelaide	79.3
=67	65	Universit�� Libre de Bruxelles	79.4
=67	58	University College Dublin	79.4
66	=75	University of Liverpool	79.5
65	=62	Monash University	79.6
=63	=66	Technical University of Denmark	79.7
=63	N/A	Aston University	79.7
62	71	University of Exeter	79.8
61	=44	University of Waikato	80.3
=58	57	University of Queensland Australia	80.4
=58	70	Durham University	80.4
=58	37	University of Wollongong	80.4
57	=60	University of Bern	80.7
56	56	University of South Australia	80.8
55	50	University of Melbourne	81.3
54	=32	University of Otago	81.5
=52	54	The University of Hong Kong	81.9
=52	N/A	?cole Normale Sup��rieure, Paris	81.9
51	53	University of Manchester	82.0
50	59	University of Southampton	82.4
49	N/A	Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland	82.6
48	=39	University of New South Wales	83.5
=46	=32	University of Sydney	83.6
=46	55	University of Sussex	83.6
=44	30	Trinity College Dublin	83.9
=44	48	University of Leicester	83.9
43	?	KTH Royal Institute of Technology	84.0
42	38	University of Aberdeen	84.1
41	=42	Victoria University of Wellington	84.2

Rank (2015)	Rank (2014)	Institution	International outlook
=39	46	Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)	84.3
=39	49	University of Edinburgh	84.3
=37	=39	Birkbeck, University of London	84.4
=37	=34	University of Fribourg	84.4
36	51	Lancaster University	84.7
35	36	University of British Columbia	84.8
34	=34	Universit�� de Lausanne	85.1
33	26	Murdoch University	85.3
32	=42	University of Warwick	85.7
31	=44	University of Essex	86.7
=28	31	University of Z��rich	86.9
=28	24	University of Technology, Sydney	86.9
=28	N/A	Swinburne University of Technology	86.9
?	29	King��s College London	87.0
=25	18	University of Western Australia	87.3
=25	=19	University of Auckland	87.3
24	47	London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)	87.4
23	25	University of Cambridge	87.8
22	=19	University of Canterbury	88.2
=20	=19	Queen Mary University of London	88.6
=20	23	Queen��s University Belfast	88.6
19	=15	Brunel University London	88.8
18	=9	Macquarie University	89.2
17	=15	Maastricht University	89.7
16	17	University of St Andrews	90.5

#1 Submitted by Michael James Barnes on һ�� 25, 2015 - 8:01am

THE is rapidly making a mockery of itself with its ridiculous obsession with rankings of all sorts, associated with idiotic methodologies and metrics devised by failed number-crunchers desparate to boost nominal circulation, and hence advertising revenues. What cretin can assert that LSE and Cambridge are less "international" than Brunel and Canterbury ? Give me a break, already ! Au Revoir, Auf Wiedersehen, Arrivederci, Sayonara !

#2 Submitted by ChrisParrTHE on һ�� 26, 2015 - 10:28am

Hi Michael. We've been very clear with what this table represents - it looks at international research collaborations, and proportion of students / staff from other countries. On these measures, the results are as above - it might not be who you'd expect up near the top, but that's why these exercises can be so interesting! Of course our overall rankings take far more criteria into account, and the methodology is available on www.thewur.com, along with our main rankings tables.

#3 Submitted by tomcannon on һ�� 29, 2015 - 11:31pm

The weight given to overseas students is far too large and distorts the rankings.

#4 Submitted by comjc2 on �� 2, 2015 - 2:53pm

Tom Cannon - do you work for the UK Home Office per chance ? :-)

#5 Submitted by ChrisParrTHE on �� 3, 2015 - 2:19pm

Hi Alex. I addressed some of your points in a blog I wrote - you can find it here: http://owl.li/IpuxY Our overall World University Rankings are based on a much wider set of criteria than this "international" table. You can find the top 400, and the methodology, at www.thewur.com. Hope this helps. Chris

#6 Submitted by Waterbug on �� 25, 2015 - 9:28am

Dear Phil and Chris, I have to echo Michael's sentiment, though with less vehemence. The question you should ask yourselves is this: "do these rankings make a constructive contribution to the conversation about universities, or are we misinforming people?" The differences in the universities you rank (here and elsewhere) are, in some cases, so vast that a simple number distorts the picture to the point of absurdity. In other cases, universities that are extremely close in many respects are miles apart in your "numbers." In other instances, universities rocket up or down the rankings with no real explanation as to why. But most importantly, in _all_ cases, these are distinct and complex institutions, each with a unique history and character. They are not Hondas, they are not cheeseburgers, they are not Hollywood starlets. Trying to distil their identity into a single number is both reductive and disrespectful. By furthering the idea that a university's character and quality can be assessed so baldly, you are insulting those who work and study there and deceiving those who are evaluating it from the outside. Worse yet, since you are (intentionally) shaping taste with these rankings, universities are setting their own mileposts in relation to this artificial metric that only tangentially (at best) reflects the quality of research and teaching at the university. Ask yourself this: how would you feel if, as the editor of a magazine on cars, your ranking encouraged a major manufacturer design cars that conformed to your metric better in the short run, but were actually less fuel- efficient, and more dangerous to drive in the long run? This, in effect, is what you are accomplishing. Universities are implementing expensive, short-sighted, and damaging reforms in order to "raise their scores." These changes are, in the long run, harming all those who work and study there. The only ones who benefit are the upper management who have completely taken the false premise of it on board, and can now crow (and gain absurd salary raises) if their institutions climbs the rankings or cavil (and blame staff under-performance) if it drops. US News and World Report, in the name of crass commercialization, started this absurd trend. They will not stop because 1.) the "College Issue" is their best-selling one and 2.) they don't give a tinker's damn what the effect is. THE is doing itself, and �й�AƬ, a disservice by jumping on the same bandwagon. I know you hold yourselves to a higher standard and want to make a positive contribution to one of the most important civic conversations under way around the globe--how we should structure and improve our university system, to the benefit of all. So, I ask you once again, please desist. If THE set the example, hopefully the Guardian will follow suit and we can all get back to the vital task of genuinely improving HE and thoughtfully discussing the success or failure of different visions and strategies.

#7 Submitted by Elmira on ʮ�� 26, 2016 - 10:29am

Dear Colleagues, Could you please clarify if exchange and visiting students are counted as the body of international students for the ranking purposes? Thank you in advance! Best regards, Elmira Innopolis University, Russia

#8 Submitted by ellie.bothwell on ʮ�� 31, 2016 - 1:46pm

Hi Elmira Our definition of international students does include visiting/exchange students who are studying for programmes that result in credits at the relevant institution.

�й�AƬ