A recent article in The Economist has cast a spotlight on an intensifying debate within the United Kingdom’s higher education sector: the pursuit by too many British universities of so-called “world-class” status. According to the Economist’s July 2025 leader, this fixation with international rankings comes at a cost—not just to individual institutions, but to the wider society those universities are supposed to serve. As Thailand continues to elevate its own higher education ambitions, the lessons emerging from British campuses are timely and relevant for policymakers, educators, and students across the kingdom.
Higher education in the UK has long been revered worldwide, with venerable institutions like Oxford and Cambridge setting global benchmarks. However, the quest for international prestige now permeates across dozens of less-renowned universities. The Economist highlights that rather than focussing on locally-relevant missions such as addressing domestic skills shortages, universities are pouring resources into strategies designed to boost their standings in league tables like the Times Higher Education (THE) and QS World University Rankings. These efforts often include recruiting international staff, publishing in international journals, and raising research intensity—measurable markers that do not always translate into better student outcomes or national economic benefit (economist.com).
For Thai readers, the implications are multi-layered. As Thailand pushes flagship universities such as Chulalongkorn, Mahidol, and Thammasat to climb the same international rankings, it’s essential to critically examine whether global status should eclipse local needs. For example, Thailand’s National Higher Education Plan calls for expanded STEM programs and more industry-relevant training. But if universities divert resources toward ranking criteria that disproportionately reward English-language publications and internationalization, critical gaps in Thai-language teaching, rural outreach, and professional training may widen.
A key perspective offered by British observers is that the criteria used by global rankings often do not measure what matters most to a country’s development. An education expert at University College London, cited in sector analyses, argues, “University league tables incentivise conformity rather than community impact. Research-heavy profiles may impress international peers, but they rarely serve employers and local economies outside the ‘golden triangle’ of Oxford, Cambridge, and London.” Critics warn that as British universities chase ranking-friendly reforms—such as reducing teaching loads to free up staff for research—they risk neglecting undergraduate instruction, widening access gaps, and failing to meet national workforce needs.
This issue resonates in Thailand, where rural students and non-traditional learners continue to face barriers in accessing high-quality higher education. Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (MHESI) officials have in recent years emphasised local engagement and equity as priorities—but observers note a growing disconnect between policy ambition and on-the-ground incentives. The ongoing surge of international partnerships and English-taught programs may look impressive on rankings spreadsheets, but are they improving education quality or social mobility for all Thai students?
The British experience is also a cautionary tale about financial sustainability. As more universities compete for a shrinking share of international students—a key revenue source—they sometimes invest heavily in marketing and facilities rather than systemic improvements in teaching or community outreach. The Economist notes that the race for prestige has led to “mission drift,” with mid-tier universities misallocating limited funds, potentially undermining their core access and teaching mandates.
Historically, Thailand’s higher education sector has balanced cosmopolitan openness with a commitment to national development. Mahidol University’s leadership, for example, often cites the sufficiency economy philosophy as a model for aligning academic excellence with local needs. The Economist’s critique of the “world-class” fixation offers a timely reminder that engagement with rural communities, industry partnerships, and profession-oriented curricula are as vital as international recognition.
Looking ahead, the challenge for Thailand—mirroring Britain’s current debate—is to find a sustainable balance between global aspiration and local relevance. Policy analysts urge universities to diversify their measures of success, tracking graduate employability, contribution to local industries, and outreach to underserved populations alongside ranking metrics. In fact, some British universities are now experimenting with alternative assessments, focusing on social mobility and regional development impact as key performance indicators.
For Thai educators and students, the practical takeaway is clear: Do not let the quest for global rankings undermine missions that matter locally. Students and parents should scrutinise a university’s track record for hands-on learning, local partnerships, and support services in addition to its global profile. Policymakers could consider a “twin-track” approach: support a handful of institutions to pursue global excellence, while incentivizing universities throughout the system to address social, economic, and technological challenges specific to Thailand.
University leaders interviewed by the Thai Commission on Higher Education frequently echo this sentiment. One rector noted, “World-class is not only about climbing rankings tables. It is about solving world-class problems—in our own communities.” As Thailand faces the dual imperatives of global competitiveness and social inclusion, the hard-won lessons from Britain’s university sector may offer just the right moment for a course correction.
For further reading on global university rankings and their impact, see the original Economist article (economist.com), the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (timeshighereducation.com), and analyses by World Bank.