Australian universities suffer a dramatic fall in global rankings
Australia's reputation in global higher education has taken a major blow, with the 2026 QS World University Rankings revealing a steep decline for more than 70 per cent of the nation's universities.
A total of 25 Australian universities dropped in rank this year, with only two now remaining in the world's top 20.
The University of Melbourne continues to lead domestically but fell six spots to 19th globally, down from 13th last year.
The University of New South Wales also declined slightly, slipping from 19th to 20th.
The University of Sydney suffered the most significant fall among the top-tier institutions, dropping seven places from 18th to 25th, removing it from the prestigious global top 20 altogether.
Monash University was the only Australian university to improve its standing, edging up from 37th to 36th.
Angela Calderon of RMIT University, a member of the QS Global Rankings board, described the rankings as 'a wake-up call' in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald.
'We are experiencing an acceleration in the pace of change in higher education globally. Universities from emerging, middle-income economies and Asian countries are now global standouts,' Calderon said.
The rankings arrive amid growing criticism that Australia's university sector is failing to meet the evolving needs of students and society.
Professor John Quiggin, an economist at the University of Queensland and author of a recent report for the Australia Institute, was scathing in his assessment.
'Australia's universities are plagued with scandal and failing dismally,' he said.
'Australian universities are overseen by Vice-Chancellors who are paid vast sums of money, yet they are presiding over a sector which is failing staff, students and the broader community,' Quiggin added.
The sector has also drawn fire for its heavy reliance on international student enrolments, which provide a major source of revenue due to significantly higher tuition fees.
Government data shows 1,095,298 overseas students were enrolled in Australian universities, colleges, and schools in 2024, a 13 per cent increase from 969,307 in 2023.
In response, the federal government has implemented measures to curb international enrolments, aiming to reduce the number to 270,000 this year.
Despite the surge in student numbers, Australia ranks poorly on staff-to-student ratios, sitting 26th lowest in the world.
This follows years of staff cuts across the university sector.
Western Sydney University recently became a flashpoint for growing unrest, with protests erupting after it announced hundreds of job losses due to a 'large deterioration' in enrolments.
The university forecasts a deficit of $79 million by 2026.
Similarly, the University of Technology Sydney has announced it may cut up to 400 positions as part of a $100 million cost-saving drive.
Macquarie University meanwhile also announced course cuts and reduction in staff, which would see around 75 jobs go.
The QS World University Rankings is published annually by global higher education analysts QS Quacquarelli Symonds.
It is based on data from 8,467 institutions, insights from 127,041 academics and 82,096 employers, and analysis of 19.8 million academic papers and 200 million citations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Australia's teen social media ban faces a new wildcard: teenagers
SYDNEY, June 19 (Reuters) - When 13-year-old Jasmine Elkin tried out the age-checking software Australia might use to ban children and teenagers from social media, she was surprised some products could identify a person's age to the month - but she still doubts it will work. "People are always going to find a way to get past it," said the Perth schoolgirl who trialled five photo-based age estimation products with about 30 other students in May. "They can get their brother or sister to take a photo. There's nothing really that you can do about it." Elkin's view echoes one of the main concerns of child protection advocates, tech firms and even the trial organisers about the technology Australia hopes will enable the world's first national social media ban for under-16s: the software works, they say, but young people will find a way around it. From December, social media companies like Meta's (META.O), opens new tab Facebook and Instagram, Snapchat (SNAP.N), opens new tab and TikTok will face a fine of as much as A$49.5 million ($32.17 million) if they fail to take what the law calls "reasonable steps" to block younger users in an effort to protect their mental and physical health. The platforms say users need to be at least 13 years old to sign up for an account. How well the ban works could reverberate across some of the world's largest companies and the governments seeking to contain them: already Britain, France and Singapore are making efforts to keep children and teens off social media, while U.S. states including Florida are challenging free speech laws by pushing for a ban. Even the law's opponents are likely to be watching closely: X owner Elon Musk, who has been advising U.S. President Donald Trump and is a vocal opponent of platform moderation and regulation, has criticised the measure and called the regulator overseeing it a "censorship commissar". "Everybody is looking at Australia," said Colm Gannon, CEO of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children Australia, a member of the trial's stakeholder adviser group. "Australia should be really focusing on robust technology, robust testing and making sure the scope of the actual project is in line with the needs that they're trying to address." The organisers of the trial, which ended this month, say it was designed to determine whether the software worked as promised, and that nearly 60 products were pitched. But it also underlined the teenagers' tech skills - testers were so fast completing their assignments, organisers doubled the number of products they tested and halved session times as the project progressed. "It hasn't been our intention to pull apart the software, rip the guts out and work out every different way that you could circumvent it," said Andrew Hammond, general manager at tech contractor KJR, which ran the trial. They will present an overview of the findings on June 20 and deliver a detailed report to the government by the end of next month. That will inform the eSafety Commissioner's advice to the government, which cited risks from cyberbullying, harmful depictions of body image and misogynist content in pushing forward with the legislation. "We know that social media age restrictions will not be the end-all be-all solution for harms experienced by young people online, but it's a step in the right direction to keep our kids safer," said a spokesperson for Communications Minister Anika Wells. For some of the young Australians who participated, the trial was a glimpse into a world six months in the future where, according to the law, they will no longer be allowed to use a platform they have come to rely on for daily communication. "I use it a lot, but I can still live without it," said Canberra school student Charlie Price, 14, who trialled four software options in a room with about 60 peers and had his age guessed accurately (someone in his testing group was wrongly assessed at over 20). "I know people that will get really shocked and upset," added Price, who uses Snapchat, Instagram and messaging platform Discord and plans to collect phone numbers of his online associates before December. Like Elkin, he said he thought some teenagers might try to get around the block. Emanuel Casa, 15, who was in the same group, said the test subjects tried to check the products for ease and accuracy, but "no one tried to challenge it necessarily, like no one tried to trick it." Hammond said software that revolved around a user submitting a selfie - sometimes with different facial expressions - proved the fastest and most accurate way to identify teenagers. Products involving credit card details proved impractical since few young teens had their own cards, while those that required a person to hold up their hand in various positions gave too broad an age estimate for people near the 16 cutoff, he added. No further trials have been scheduled, but Hammond said the government would need to decide on the level of software reliability it was prepared to accept. Most of the young testers had their ages guessed correctly most of the time, but a peer of Elkin, the 13-year-old, was placed at 42 by one product, she said. "There is no measure at the moment as to what 'good' is. Do they need to be 70% effective or 80% effective or 100% effective?" said Hammond. "The government so far hasn't indicated that they're going to mandate a particular solution." Nathanael Edwards, principal of Radiant Life College, a Queensland high school where 35 students along with a few parents and teachers participated, said his group tested a basic age-gating product where a person typed in their birthday. Some did as asked, while others faked a birthday to age themselves up - although not always successfully. "I think the mathematics caught a couple of kids out," he said. ($1 = 1.5387 Australian dollars)
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Australia-US alliance is facing a decisive test, and not just over the Middle East
Would Australia go to war to support the United States in conflict with China over Taiwan – or elsewhere? The government avoids discussing the question, let alone answering it, by dismissing it as hypothetical. But it will not go away, for two reasons. First, the possibility of us going to war over Taiwan looms over the whole debate about our military preparedness and defence spending, and gives it urgency. That is because choosing to fight China alongside the US is a scenario in which Australia would find itself drawn into a major conflict. Surely we should be talking about that choice now, in advance, rather than wait till a crisis breaks? But the other reason the question won't go away is that Washington wants it answered, and soon. Today, of course, all eyes are on the Middle East as Donald Trump ponders whether to join Israel's apparently open-ended war with Iran. Until recently that would almost certainly mean Australia too was faced with a choice as to whether to follow the US into yet another Middle East war. But things are different now. The defence minister, Richard Marles, has dismissed any Australian involvement, saying on Tuesday: 'We are not a part of this conflict.' That is because, despite Iran and Gaza, China's epochal challenge to the US makes the Taiwan question, not the Middle East, the decisive test of our US alliance. Trump's isolationism means the risk of a US-China war over Taiwan is lower now than it was under Joe Biden. But it remains the US military's key concern, as the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, made clear in Singapore. Australia's commitment in such a conflict has become a touchstone of our seriousness as an ally at a time when ever-closer enmeshment with Washington under Aukus has become the core of the Albanese government's foreign and defence policies. It goes to the heart of whether Aukus really is in US interests, and thus whether Aukus will survive. It will be a central question in the Pentagon's review of the pact. That is because under Aukus the US is supposed to be passing some of its vital and scarce Virginia-class submarines to Australia. It makes no sense to do that unless it is sure that we would send them to join the US fleet in a war. The same is true of the buildup of US combat forces, including long-range bombers, at Australian bases. That too makes no sense unless we guarantee in advance that those forces can be used in a war against China. So for the Pentagon the question of Australia's stance in a US-China war is not remotely hypothetical. All this no doubt explains why Marles edged closer to engaging on the issue on Monday at a defence conference in Canberra. He did not say, as one breathless headline had it, 'US-China war: we would be involved.' But he did drop two plain hints to Washington. He said: 'Australia's geography today is more relevant to great power contest than it has been … arguably at any point in our history.' This conveyed to Washington that the government understands how central Australia has become to the US military contest with China, and how much US planning for war with China now assumes Australian support. A few moments later he said: 'The defence of Australia is intimately connected with the peace and stability of the Pacific, the peace and stability of south-east Asia, of north-east Asia, of the north-east Indian Ocean.' He went on: 'The geography of our national security, it lies much less along the coastline of the continent, as it does further afield.' This conveys that the government's military posture is focused on fighting alongside the US far from our shores in places like the Taiwan Strait, rather than defending the continent itself. Others speaking at the conference went further, with one former senior official saying: 'We would be involved.' This seems to reflect the broader consensus of the Canberra bureaucracy. But do Anthony Albanese and his senior minsters agree? Do Marles' comments reflect anything more than a desire to placate Washington without really answering a question they would prefer to leave in the too-hard basket, hoping it will go away? If so, they are making a big mistake. It is time for Australia to have a serious conversation about our involvement. Two questions should be uppermost. First, what would be our aims in taking part in a conflict? The obvious ones are to help defend Taiwan's democracy, to help preserve the US position as the leading power in Asia and stop China taking its place, and to 'pay our dues' as a US ally. Second, how likely are we to achieve these aims? The short answer is very unlikely. With or without Australia's support, the US has no serious chance of winning a war with China over Taiwan. That means Taiwan would not be saved, the US position in Asia would be not preserved, and Australia's value as an ally would disappear. Like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have followed Washington into a war that achieved neither its objectives nor ours but this time at unimaginably greater cost. That being so, we should give Washington a plain answer to its Taiwan question. The answer should be no. Hugh White is emeritus professor of strategic studies at ANU. His Quarterly Essay Hard New World: Our Post-American Future was published this month
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Horror as cat fur vests are discovered being sold at a popular shopping centre in Melbourne
A children's vest made from the skin of two cats being sold in a popular shopping centre in Melbourne has ignited calls for a crackdown on the sale of fur. A joint investigation by the Animal Justice Party and the Collective Fashion Justice party discovered the origin of the vest after the fur was tested in a lab. The jacket, likely to be made from the skin of two cats, as well as rabbits, was labelled as 100 per cent 'sheep skin'. The vests are being sold by the Suttons Ugg chain store. Two beanies with pom poms labelled as 100 per cent 'acrylic' were also tested, with the results revealing they were made from fox and raccoon dog fur. Animal Justice Party MP for Northern Victoria Georgie Purcell called for the sale of fur to be banned as she fronted reporters on Thursday. 'The message from the community couldn't be clearer – fur is out of fashion. Whether it's cat, dog, rabbit, or fox – the one constant is that it's all cruel,' she said. 'The time for regulation is done. The only thing left to do is to completely ban fur, just as other jurisdictions around the world have already done.'
