Methodology — Field Ranking
Universities offering programmes in the selected field, ranked by a weighted score. Neither signal works alone: ranking position by itself pushes general universities with a single programme above genuine engineering institutions, while programme count by itself rewards volume over quality. The three components are weighted as follows:
Indicators & weights
3 indicators-
60%
Ranking position
Where a subject-level ranking exists for this field (ShanghaiRanking GRAS), that position is used and takes precedence — it is direct evidence in the field, whereas an overall position is only a proxy. Otherwise the best position across QS, THE and ARWU is used. Both are scaled logarithmically, so the gap between 28th and 154th counts for far more than the gap between 1200th and 1400th. Absence from every ranking scores zero here rather than removing the institution from the list
-
30%
Field depth
Number of active programmes in the selected field (Bachelor, Master, PhD combined), capped at 30 so a single very large institution cannot dominate the score
-
10%
Student capacity
Total enrolled students, capped at 50,000 — a light signal for institutional scale
Sources:
QS + THE + ARWU + Hochschulkompass ↗Applied sciences universities (Fachhochschulen) are rarely included in global rankings; their absence reflects ranking coverage, not teaching quality. Programme counts are synced quarterly.
Why we publish methodology
Every ranking on this site is computed from a public, transparent indicator set. We do not move universities up or down for commercial reasons.
Where the ranking source is external (QS, THE, ARWU), we link to the original methodology document. Where the signal is computed in-house (community mention score, programme count), we explain the inputs end-to-end.
Spot a number that does not match the official source? Open a feedback ticket — we update within 48 hours.