THE 2024 World Rankings: Full record of shifts across five Hong Kong universities – who is losing to Asian peers?

THE 2024 Rankings: How Hong Kong’s Five Universities Moved – and Who Is Losing Ground to Asian Rivals

The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings 2024 is an annual global scorecard built on 18 indicators across five pillars: teaching, research environment, research quality, international outlook, and industry income. For the second year running, the University of Hong Kong (35th), Chinese University of Hong Kong (53rd), Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (64th), Hong Kong Polytechnic University (87th), and City University of Hong Kong (99th) together form a top-100 cluster, holding 5% of the global top 100 seats. A report released in the same year by the University Grants Committee (UGC) shows that these five institutions won over 80% of Hong Kong’s competitive research grants, and their international student share hit 42% in the 2023/24 academic year, demonstrating a close coupling between ranking position and resource concentration.

Comparison Table: Rankings and Movements

Figures are drawn from the THE 2024 release, with movements calculated against the THE 2023 rankings. HKU slipped from 31st to 35th, while NUS held steady at 19th, widening the gap between the two lead universities from 12 to 16 places. When Nanyang Technological University (NTU, 32nd) is included, the relationship with HKU has inverted: a year earlier HKU led NTU by five places; this time NTU has moved three places ahead of HKU, signalling that Hong Kong’s top school is losing relative advantage within the Southeast Asian tier.

HKU: Slip in Rank and Shifting Benchmark

HKU’s THE rank moved from 31st to 35th during the cycle. The main points lost were in “Research Environment” and “Citations”. The former carries a 29% weight after the THE 2024 methodology upgrade; constrained by the pace of lab‑space expansion, HKU’s score in that indicator dropped by 2.1 points. Citation impact edged down by 1.4 points, partly because of changes in the citation window for knowledge transfer. HKU still dominates on “International Outlook”, maintaining a score of 99.2, with non‑local academic staff at 69% and over 4,500 student visas issued annually by the Immigration Department (ImmD) for principal degree students for three consecutive years.

Horizontally, East Asian competitors such as Seoul National University (62nd) and the University of Tokyo (29th) have already widened the positive gap over HKU. The distance between HKU and NUS has stretched from 12 to 16 rank places, directly reflecting the volume difference in industry income (knowledge transfer): NUS’s annual revenue from corporate partnerships is roughly 2.4 times that of HKU, and the score gap on this indicator alone translates into a six‑place advantage.

CUHK: Structural Thrust Behind a 5‑place Rise

CUHK is the only top‑100 Hong Kong institution to record a notable positive movement, climbing from 58th to 53rd, right at the edge of the top 50. The lift came chiefly from concurrent improvements in “Industry Income” and “Research Quality”. Non‑competitive research funding for CUHK disclosed by the UGC in 2023 shows that contract research revenue from business and professional bodies rose 18% year on year, closely linked to the ramping up of collaborations involving the CUHK Medical Centre and the Sha Tin cluster of the Hong Kong Science Park.

On research quality, CUHK scored 87.3 in THE’s “Research Strength” sub‑component, five percentage points above the Hong Kong average. Statistics released by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA) after the 2024 HKDSE results also indicate that the average of the best five subjects for high‑achieving students admitted to CUHK reached a multi‑year high, meaning the academic foundation of its intake has shored up the university’s baseline for future ranking cycles.

HKUST: A Six‑place Slide and the Citation Tail

HKUST fell from 58th to 64th. For a university once ranked among Asia’s top 30, this six‑place retreat does not stem from a single cause. THE’s evaluation framework shows that HKUST’s “Citations” score dropped by 5.3 points, the largest of the five institutions. One reason is that the citation half‑life in engineering and physical sciences has shortened, while HKUST’s output base in medicine and life sciences remains too small to compensate quickly.

Nonetheless, HKUST scored 99 on “International Outlook”, on a par with HKU. ImmD data for 2023 show that approved student visas for non‑local HKUST students still grew by 12%, and the newly introduced Guangzhou campus is gradually expanding cross‑border research volume. The Education Bureau (EDB) has already stated in its 2024 policy address that it will strengthen joint‑appointment mechanisms between HKUST and mainland laboratories, which may help repair the scores lost on “Research Environment”.

PolyU and CityU: Technical Layering and Holding the Edge

PolyU moved from 79th to 87th, correcting downwards by eight places, while CityU held the 99th spot, acting as the top‑100 gatekeeper. The two universities diverged in their performance on “Research Quality” and “Teaching Reputation”. PolyU still ranks second in Hong Kong in citations per paper, but its improvement in the student‑staff ratio has lagged behind Asian reference points such as KAIST and Shanghai Jiao Tong University, costing it points on teaching environment. CityU kept its place at the bottom of the top 100 largely on the back of its “Engineering and Technology” subject entering the global top 50 for the first time and strong citation performance in veterinary sciences.

ImmD figures for non‑local student visa approvals in the first quarter of 2024 show that PolyU and CityU together accounted for 37% of the five universities’ total applications, with taught postgraduate programmes providing the bulk of the increase. This structure leans towards short‑cycle teaching provision, which places a ceiling on long‑term gains in research visibility.

Reference Experiment: The Pull of Singapore’s Two Universities and Beijing‑Shanghai’s Advance

Placing the five Hong Kong universities alongside counterparts in Singapore, Beijing and Shanghai makes the shifts in the competitive band clearer.

Singapore: NUS at 19th and NTU at 32nd present a flat but firmly high‑sitting rank curve. The two universities fully benefit from the National Research Foundation (NRF) excellence‑scheme grants. Their international staff ratios are similar to Hong Kong’s, but their “Industry Income” scores lead Hong Kong institutions by about 15%.
Beijing: Tsinghua University (12th) and Peking University (14th) both entered the top 15, rising four and three places respectively from the previous edition. Mainland universities have gained markedly from the introduction of “Research Strength” adjustments in THE 2024, as the dual advantages of total research funding and workforce scale begin to materialise.
Shanghai: Fudan University (44th) and Shanghai Jiao Tong University (43rd) form a tight pair, with their ranks now straddling CUHK.

Using HKUST (64th) – the median of the five – as an anchor, the gap between HKUST and Tsinghua has expanded to 52 places. The gap with NTU has swung from a surplus of 22 places in Hong Kong’s favour a year ago to a deficit of 32 places. The group of Hong Kong institutions is being squeezed from both the north and south in Asia’s elite tier.

Indicator Decomposition: How Weight Revisions Affected Hong Kong

THE 2024 applied updated weights: Teaching 29.5%, Research Environment 29%, Research Quality 30%, International Outlook 7.5%, Industry Income 4%. Compared with earlier editions, the weight of “Research Environment” was raised sharply to 29%, and new sub‑indicators such as “Research Strength” and “Research Excellence” were added. While Hong Kong universities have always been steady on teaching reputation, constraints on research space became immediately visible once the weight increased. The “Hong Kong Higher Education Research Assessment and Space Requirements Report”, published by the UGC for the first time in twenty years, points out that the net operational research space shortfall across the eight UGC‑funded institutions reaches 23%, directly dragging down the “Research Environment” scores.

A countervailing force appeared in “International Outlook”. The five Hong Kong universities average 98.3 on this dimension, continuing to lead Asia. ImmD’s student visa system data show that non‑local entry permits issued in the 2023/24 academic year have rebounded 31% above the pre‑pandemic level, with postgraduate students accounting for 68% of the total, providing the universities with a stable feedback loop on international reputation. This explains why CUHK and CityU could, on some dimensions, withstand the scale effect of mainland institutions.

The EDB submitted a paper to the Legislative Council in 2024 setting aside 60 hectares of land in the Northern Metropolis for higher education development. If realised, the plan will ease the physical research‑environment bottleneck in the long term. In the medium term, however, space constraints will remain the main drag on Hong Kong’s scores through the 2025–2026 ranking cycles.

Signals in the Asian Competitive Landscape

Looking at the radar of rank movements, the overall trajectory of Hong Kong’s five universities sends two signals:

Signal one: loosening at the top ecological niche. HKU dropped from 31st to 35th, leaving the top‑30 band for the first time in five years. Its gap with NUS widened from 12 to 16 places, and it now operates in a completely different competitive bandwidth from Tsinghua and Peking universities.
Signal two: internal rotation in the middle band. CUHK moved up five places against the trend, touching the threshold of the top 50. HKUST and PolyU together gave away 14 places, significantly thinning Hong Kong’s mid‑table depth.
Signal three: a stalemate around the top‑100 boundary. CityU held 99th place for the second year running, highlighting the resilience of Hong Kong’s fifth‑placed school, but also indicating a lack of extra momentum to attack positions further up.

Given the intensity of funding directed at the mainland’s C9 League and Singapore’s institutions, the above fluctuations are unsurprising. Total UGC grants for the 2023/24 year were HK$22.8 billion, a year‑on‑year increase of just 2.4%, whereas the annual R&D expenditure growth rate of “Double First‑Class” universities on the mainland has generally exceeded 12%. Against this backdrop of attrition on one side and expansion on the other, rank movements are essentially an expression of resource pricing.

Data Reference Checklist

• HKU, 35th, 16 places behind NUS (difference was 12 places a year earlier).
• CUHK, 53rd, up 5 places year‑on‑year; industry income indicator rose by 11%.
• HKUST, 64th, down 6 places; lost 5.3 points on citation impact.
• PolyU, 87th, down 8 places; academic reputation score dipped by 1.8.
• CityU, 99th, zero rank change; Engineering entered the top 50 for the first time.
• Average International Outlook score of the five universities: 98.3, highest in Asia.
• ImmD non‑local student visas reached 45,200 in 2023, a 15% year‑on‑year increase.
• UGC research space shortfall: 23%; the increased weight directly affected environment scores.
• Tsinghua (12), Peking (14), Fudan (44), Shanghai Jiao Tong (43) all rank well above HKUST.
• NTU (32) overtook HKU and led by 3 rank places.

FAQ

What is the common shortcoming of the five Hong Kong universities in THE 2024?

The weakness is concentrated in “Research Environment” and “Citations”. The former was amplified by a new weight regime and a physical space gap for teaching and research; the latter is constrained by Hong Kong’s narrow disciplinary bandwidth between engineering and the life sciences.

How large is the real gap between HKU and NUS?

HKU is ranked 35th, NUS 19th, a difference that has widened from 12 rank places to 16. The gap is also reflected in less visible dimensions such as industry income, research volume, and doctoral training scale.

Does a decline in rankings mean Hong Kong degrees are losing value?

Rankings reflect institutional research competitiveness, not a depreciation of the qualification. Hong Kong universities remain resilient in employer reputation and international recognition, and graduate employment data show no abnormal fluctuations.

Why did CUHK manage to rise against the trend?

Its industry income score rose by double digits thanks to medical and Science Park collaborations, while the research strength indicator was lifted by a higher share of highly cited papers. Stable or improving student intake quality also supported the teaching reputation score.

Will ranking fluctuations affect student visa approvals or post‑study stay opportunities?

ImmD’s visa criteria are unaffected by marginal rank changes. The Immigration Arrangements for Non‑local Graduates (IANG) continue to operate under existing regulations; rank movements do not directly hinder employment or residence.

Will the slide of HKUST and PolyU continue?

HKUST’s research environment indicator is likely to improve as its Guangzhou campus operates at scale, but citation impact will need 3–5 citation windows to repair. PolyU could gradually narrow the decline if it achieves breakthroughs in student‑staff ratio and cross‑border research networks.

How should parents and students interpret this round of ranking changes sensibly?

Treat rankings as a single slice of data. Pay attention to subject‑level performance, research funding trends, and long‑term campus space plans, rather than drawing conclusions solely from the overall table.