In response to inquiries from the general public, we would like to clarify the following regarding our University’s absence from the latest edition of Times Higher Education Sustainability Impact Ratings, which was recently published.
Simply put, Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca (UBB) is not included in this ranking because our University chose not to pay the participation fee, or in other words, because it did not register and participate.
UBB decided as early as 2025 to cease providing data for the Times Higher Education Sustainability Impact Ratings, becoming the first university in Romania to adopt such a stance. The decision was primarily prompted by a change in the ranking’s participation model, which introduced an annual fee as a requirement to be included in the evaluation process.
This decision is consistent with that of the world’s leading universities; it is noteworthy that out of the top 25 universities in the THE World University Rankings, only one participates in the THE Sustainability Impact Ratings as well. This indicates differing perspectives regarding the usefulness and relevance of such a tool of evaluation. Furthermore, when the participation fee was introduced, several representatives of the academic community—such as the German Rectors’ Conference for instance—publicly expressed their concerns regarding this new direction.
UBB believes that the tools for monitoring and evaluating university performance, when implemented, must remain as accessible and inclusive as possible, so that participation is determined solely by institutions’ willingness to commit to transparency and external evaluation, not by their ability to bear additional costs. The introduction of financial barriers risks limiting the overall representativeness of the ranking and undermining one of the principles that should form the basis for these rankings.
UBB’s decision does not represent a departure from its commitments to sustainable development and its contribution to internationally adopted sustainability goals. On the contrary, the University maintains and strengthens its efforts in these areas, continuing to monitor and transparently communicate the results achieved through its academic, research, and community service activities.
UBB constantly monitors trends in international university rankings and their role in evaluating the performance of higher education institutions. In this context, UBB observes a number of national and international trends that affect the relevance and original purpose of such evaluation tools. University rankings can serve as useful benchmarks for the comparative analysis of academic performance, but they cannot fully capture the complexity of the activities carried out by universities. Furthermore, certain evaluation mechanisms can lead to distorted institutional behaviors, focused more on quantity than quality—specifically, on optimizing the indicators used in rankings rather than maximizing the actual impact of education, research, and services provided to society. Added to these issues is the phenomenon whereby a university’s inclusion in certain rankings is contingent upon the payment of a participation fee.
Finally, we would like to note that we believe THE World University Rankings is one of today’s most important rankings, useful when used as a “proxy” rather than a direct reflection of academic performance. We also congratulate those who chose to participate (with a fee) and achieved good positions in the Times Higher Education Sustainability Impact Ratings. However, UBB—like the world’s leading universities (e.g., nearly all of the top 25 universities in the THE World University Rankings, such as Cambridge, Columbia, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale)—has a different perspective on academic performance that does not align with the new Times Higher Education Sustainability Impact Ratings. Consequently, UBB will continue to monitor the evolution of international rankings on an ongoing basis and decide whether to participate in them based on their relevance, credibility, transparency, and inclusivity. At the same time, UBB upholds the principle that the evaluation and comparison of university performance must serve the public interest and the development of higher education at the global and national levels, rather than becoming dependent on mechanisms that may distort academic activities or limit institutions’ equitable access to quality assessment processes.
The press release was originally published here.